alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_maps(3)
              - products_publications(2)
              - multimedia_audio(24)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(24)
              - (-)multimedia_image(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(4)
              - multimedia_video(7)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(3)
              - documents_file(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(6)
              - arizona(2)
              - california(3)
              - hawaii(25)
              - maryland(1)
              - massachusetts(2)
              - minnesota(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - (-)south dakota(4)

## By Year

Photography        June 2, 2008        Outreach at Geology Camp 2008

Photography        June 19, 2012        USGS Outreach at South Dakota School of Mines Field Affair Class

Photography        December 31, 2013        Rhoads Fork Near Rochford, SD

Photography        June 19, 2012        USGS Outreach at South Dakota School of Mines Field Affair Class
# C_2021349EN.01003802.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Veronese v EUIPO — Veronese Design Company (VERONESE)

(Case T-749/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark VERONESE - Earlier EU word mark VERONESE - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation 207/2009 (now Article (8)(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 - res judicata)

(2021/C 349/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Veronese (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Herrburger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Veronese Design Company Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong) (represented by: B. Lafont, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2020 (Case R-1951/2020-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Veronese and Veronese Design Company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Veronese to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Veronese to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 135475 & (20) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 135475 COA: 279220 Wayne CC: 03-006927-01 J. D. FULLER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 5, 2007 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 re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to add issues is DENIED.

p0421 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.

April 28, 2008

Clerk
Our efforts enable families in distress to 

keep their homes or avoid foreclosure.

approximately

165K

loan workouts

in 2014

~131K

home

retention

solutions

~34K

foreclosure

alternatives

SDQ loans are those on which homeowners 

are 90+ days past due in making mortgage 

payments or that are in the foreclosure process. 

The share of single-family loans we hold or 

guarantee that are seriously delinquent (SDQ) 

has declined 19 consecutive quarters. 

1Q

’10

1Q

’11

1Q

’12

1Q

’13

1Q

’14

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

SDQ RATE

4Q

’14

(Substantially lower than

private market levels)

1.89%

as of 

12/31/14

5.47%

as of 3/31/10

mortgage

refinancings

937K

home

purchases

$434 Billion 887K

rental units

446K

This financing has enabled:

in liquidity to the mortgage market

In 2014,

we provided approximately:

The country invested

$116.1 billion

in Fannie Mae 

from 2009 to 2012

Fannie Mae expects 

to have paid Treasury 

approximately

$136.4 billion

in dividends as 

of March 31, 2015

FANNIE MAE

Dividends do not offset prior draws.

Loans acquired 

pre-2009 = 19% RESPONSIBLE CREDIT STANDARDS

SINGLE-FAMILY

CONVENTIONAL GUARANTY

BOOK OF BUSINESS

Loans acquired 2009 through 2014 = 81%

62% Excluding HARP and other Refi Plus loans

11% HARP loans

8% Other Refi Plus loans

62%

19%

8%

11%

Since Fannie Mae entered 

conservatorship, we have helped to 

stabilize America’s housing market 

and made significant progress in 

supporting the recovery and helping 

to build a sustainable housing finance 

system for the future. We are helping 

homeowners in distress and enabling 

families to buy, refinance, or rent 

homes.

In 2014, we continued to

make a difference in people’s lives.

Fannie Mae is making progress.

For more information, see our 2014 Form 10-K,

filed with the SEC on February 20, 2015.

Data as of or through December 31, 2014, unless otherwise indicated.

Published February 20, 2015.

We enable families to buy, refinance, or rent homes.

We’re maintaining responsible credit standards

and changing the industry.

We work with lenders 

to expand access to 

affordable mortgage credit.

Our 2014 results were 

strong.

We help homeowners 

who are facing hardship.

Our profits go back to

the American people.

$14.7 BILLION 

Comprehensive 

Net income income

$14.2 BILLION 

In 2014 

we reported:
# C_2020348EN.01000201.xml

| 19.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/2

---

Appeal brought on 29 January 2020 by ZW against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2019 in Case T-727/18, ZW v EIB

(Case C-50/20 P)

(2020/C 348/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ZW (represented by: T. Petsas, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB)

By order of 3 September 2020, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) decided that the appeal is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
rXxJLw7rim11. TEan

November 14, 1962

Mr. W. W. Kllgore OpinionNo. W-1473 County Attorney Victoria,Texas Re: Whether or not the plea of nolo contendere is available In Justice Dear Mr. Kilgore: Court. You have requestedan opinion as to whether or not a plea of nolo contendere Is available In Justice Court. The procedures governingpractice in Justice Courts are found in Title 11, Code of Criminal Procedure,Articles 879- 920. The provisions contained therein applicable to this opinion are as follows: Article 898: "Afterthe jury is lmpaneled, the defendant may plead guilty or not guilty OF the specialplea named In the succeedingarticle. Article 899: "The only specialplea allowed Is that of former acquittal or conviction for the same offense." Article 900: "All pleading in justicecourt Is oral. The justice shallnote upon his docket the plea offered." Article 902: "The justice shall enter a pl$a of not guilty if the defendant refuses to plead. There is, therefore,no provision contained In Title 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizinga plea of nolo contendere in Justice Court. It Is observed that the legislature,by Senate Bill 199, Acts 1959, 56th Legislature,p. 257, ch. 149,has recently amended Articles 501, 502, 505, 517, 518 and 519 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure to provide for a plea of nolo contendere In some Instances; It Is clear by the act that it only amends those articles enumerated,and applies only to practice in the District and County Court.Mr. W. W. Kilgore, Page 2 ,(w-l473)

The legislaturehas specificallyset out rules governing the practice loJustice Court, and only thosepleas specified by Articles 898 and 899, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,are available in the Justice of the Peace Court.

SUMMARY "Theplea of nolo contendere isnot available in a Justice of the Peace Court!' Yours very truly, WILL WILSON AttorneyGeneral of Texas 

# ms

AssistantAttorneyGeneral PP:cjs APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE: W. V. Geppert, Chairman Charles R. Lind Cecil Rostch Ernest Fortenberry RFVIEWEDFOR THE ATTORNEYGENERAL By: Leonard Passmore
# C_2020371EN.01000601.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/6

---

Appeal brought on 19 June 2020 by Sebastian Veit against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-474/18, Sebastian Veit v European Central Bank

(Case C-272/20 P)

(2020/C 371/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Sebastian Veit (represented by: K. Kujath, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 in Case T-474/18; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 in Case T-474/18;

| — | annul the decision of the European Central Bank of 3 January 2018 on the classification of the appellant with effect from 1 January 2018, as clarified by the decision of the European Central Bank of 25 May 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Central Bank of 3 January 2018 on the classification of the appellant with effect from 1 January 2018, as clarified by the decision of the European Central Bank of 25 May 2018;

| — | order the European Central Bank to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Central Bank to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The judgment under appeal infringes EU law. The General Court misinterpreted the general principle of equal treatment under Articles 20, 51(1) and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The General Court erred in deciding that the difference in treatment of internal and external candidates for recruitment with regard to their classification in step by the European Central Bank on the basis of various rules was justified and proportionate.

The case-law of the Court of Justice on the interpretation of the provisions of the Staff Regulations on the classification in step of an official in service, which was applied mutatis mutandis to the case by the General Court, does not correspond with the facts that have given rise to the dispute.

---
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 837 

Authorizing the President of the Senate to certify the report of the Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate regarding 

the refusal of Dr. Ralph de la Torre to appear and testify before 

the Committee. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2024 

Mr. SANDERS, from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, reported the following original resolution; which was placed on the 

calendar 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the President of the Senate to certify the report 

of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate regarding the refusal of Dr. Ralph 

de la Torre to appear and testify before the Committee. 

Whereas the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions of the Senate (referred to in this preamble as 

the ‘‘Committee’’) is currently conducting a duly authorized investigation into the bankruptcy of Steward Health 

Care Systems LLC; 

Whereas, on July 25, 2024, the Committee issued a duly authorized subpoena to Dr. Ralph de la Torre, Chairman 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 837 ATS 

and Chief Executive Officer of Steward Health Care Systems LLC, directing him to testify before the Committee 

on September 12, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.; 

Whereas, on September 4, 2024, counsel for Dr. de la Torre 

submitted to the Committee objections to the compelled 

testimony under the subpoena issued by the Committee 

and indicated Dr. de la Torre’s intent to decline to comply with the subpoena; 

Whereas, having considered the legal objections that had been 

submitted by counsel for Dr. de la Torre, the Committee 

overruled those objections in their entirety on September 

5, 2024, and ordered and directed that Dr. de la Torre 

comply with the subpoena issued by the Committee to 

testify at 10:00 a.m. on September 12, 2024; and 

Whereas Dr. de la Torre has refused to comply with the subpoena by the Committee as ordered and directed by the 

Committee: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That pursuant to sections 102 and 104 of 

2 the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 192, 194), the President 

3 of the Senate shall certify the report of the Committee 

4 on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, 

5 detailing the refusal of Dr. Ralph de la Torre, Chairman 

6 and Chief Executive Officer of Steward Health Care Sys7 tems LLC, to appear and testify before the Committee, 

8 to the United States Attorney for the District of Colum9 bia, to the end that Dr. de la Torre be proceeded against 

10 in the manner and form provided by law. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Derek D. DURANT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0318

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
# C_2022037EN.01002901.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — KY v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-433/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU - Transfer to the EU scheme - Crediting of additional pensionable years - Restitution of the amount of pension rights not taken into account in the EU’s pension annuity scheme - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - The ‘minimum subsistence figure’ rule - Unjust enrichment)

(2022/C 37/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KY (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and A. Ysebaert, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the implied decision, confirmed by the express decision of 10 October 2019, rejecting the request for restitution of the non-subsidised part of the pension rights acquired by the applicant before she took up her duties and transferred to the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders KY to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders KY to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0267 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. DAVID LOUIS TRENK,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 29, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 24 2020

12/24/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0267
[Cite as State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2022-Ohio-1141.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO ex rel.

BRIAN M. AMES,

Relator-Appellant,

- v -

PORTAGE COUNTY BOARD 

OF COMMISSIONERS,

Respondent-Appellee.

CASE NO. 2022-P-0013

Civil Appeal from the

Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court No. 2019 CV 00878

M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N

Decided: April 4, 2022

Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Brian M. Ames, pro se, 2632 Ranfield Road, Mogadore, OH 44260 (Relator-Appellant).

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, 

OH 44266 (For Respondent-Appellee).

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Brian M. Ames, filed a pro se notice of appeal on February 11, 

2022, from an entry in which the trial court denied his motion for summary judgment. 

{¶2} Initially, we must determine if there is a final order since we may entertain 

only those appeals from final judgments. Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96 (1989). 

According to Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, a trial court’s judgment 

can only be immediately reviewed by an appellate court if it constitutes a “final order.” 

Germ v. Fuerst, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2003-L-116, 2003-Ohio-6241, ¶ 3. If it is not final, 

then an appellate court does not have jurisdiction to review the matter, and the matter 
2

Case No. 2022-P-0013

must be dismissed. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989). 

For a judgment to be final and appealable, it must satisfy the requirements of R.C. 

2505.02 and if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B). See Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Tomaiko, 11th 

Dist. Portage No. 2011-P-0103, 2011-Ohio-6838, ¶ 3.

{¶3} Pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(B), there are seven categories of a “final order,” 

and if the judgment of the trial court satisfies any of them, it will be deemed a “final order” 

and can be immediately appealed and reviewed by a court of appeals. 

{¶4} Here, Ames is appealing the trial court’s January 27, 2022 denial of his

motion for summary judgment. The trial court’s entry does not fit within any of the 

categories of R.C. 2505.02. In fact, “[a]n order denying a motion for summary judgment 

is not a final appealable order.” Hitchcock v. Segedy, 11th Dist. Geauga Nos. 2009-G2925 and 2009-G-2926, 2009-Ohio-6035. Further, merely including Civ.R. 54(B) 

language into an otherwise non-final order does not transform it into a final one. Jori, 

L.L.C. v. B2B Internatl., L.L.C., 11th Dist. Lake No. 2016-L-046, 2016-Ohio-7162, at ¶ 18. 

{¶5} Ames will have a meaningful remedy by way of an appeal once a final order

is reached as to all claims and parties when the case is decided and/or dismissed. See

Johnson v. Warren Police Dept., 11th Dist. No. 2005-T-0117, 2005-Ohio-6904, at ¶14. 

{¶6} This appeal is sua sponte dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J.,

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,

concur.
# C_2022198EN.01001001.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — CT, Ferme de la Sarte SPRL v Région wallonne

(Case C-726/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy (CAP) - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) funding - Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 - Article 17(1)(b) - Investment support concerning the processing, marketing and/or development of agricultural products covered by Annex I to the TFEU - Concept of ‘agricultural products’ - Concept of ‘live trees’ and ‘other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage’ - Turf rolls for the fitting-out of green roofs)

(2022/C 198/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CT, Ferme de la Sarte SPRL

Defendant: Région wallonne

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘agricultural products covered by Annex I to the TFEU’ in that provision covers plants used for making green roofs, such as turf rolls, so that tangible investments concerning them are eligible for aid under the rural development support measure referred to in that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.

---
Exhibit 15.1    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  Exhibit 15.1  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements 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), on Form S-8 filed on January 18, 2011 (File No. 333-171739), on Form S-8 filed on April 8, 2011 (File No. 333-173382), on Form S-8 filed on September 12, 2014 (File No. 333-198706), and on Form F-3 filed on September 21, 2012 (File No. 333-183955) of Novartis AG of our report dated January 26, 2015 relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F.  PricewaterhouseCoopers AG   /s/Bruno Rossi

/s/Stephen JohnsonBruno   Rossi   Audit expert   Auditor in charge

Stephen JohnsonGlobal Relationship Partner  Basel, January 26, 2015  PricewaterhouseCoopers AG, St. Jakobs-Strasse 25, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland Telephone: +41 58 792 51 00, Facsimile: +41 58 792 51 10, www.pwc.ch  PricewaterhouseCoopers AG is a member of a global network of companies that are legally independent of one another.