alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016287EN.01003001.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/30

---

Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-554S)

(Case T-316/16)

(2016/C 287/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SDC-554S’ — Application for registration No 12 780 581

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 1575/2015-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.

---
EXHIBIT 31.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Wayne Badovinus, certify that:



1. I have
reviewed this 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 material fact 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 financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;



4. The registrants other certifying 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 ensure that 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) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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 registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, 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 are reasonably 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: October 29, 2004 |  |                                        
|                       |  | /s/ WAYNE BADOVINUS                    
|                       |  | Wayne Badovinus Chief Executive Officer
LaShanda S. MCDANIEL v. Willie J. MCDANIEL II

2160490

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of ClearPoint
Business Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the
Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009
(the “Report”) 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 operations of the
Company.




CLEARPOINT
      BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC.Date:
      May 20, 2009
                    By:
                    /s/ John G.
      PhillipsJohn
      G. Phillips
                      Chief
      Financial Officer
                      (principal
      financial
officer)




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
Timothy MARTIN v. NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE COMPANY

NO. 2018-C-2046

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
# C_2021242EN.01003301.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — West End Drinks v EUIPO — Pernod Ricard (The King of SOHO)

(Case T-31/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark The King of SOHO - Earlier EU word mark SOHO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 242/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: West End Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Hawkes, Solicitor, C. Hall, Barrister, and B. Niemann Fadani, 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: Pernod Ricard (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 October 2019 (Case R 1543/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Pernod Ricard and West End Drinks.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Dismisses the cross-claim as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the cross-claim as inadmissible;

| 3. | With regard to the main action, orders West End Drinks Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred, in the context of the present proceedings, by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Pernod Ricard; |
| --- | --- |

3.

With regard to the main action, orders West End Drinks Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred, in the context of the present proceedings, by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Pernod Ricard;

| 4. | With regard to the cross-claim, orders Pernod Ricard to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by EUIPO, and orders West End Drinks to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

With regard to the cross-claim, orders Pernod Ricard to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by EUIPO, and orders West End Drinks to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---
Order entered January 24, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 01360
- CV
IN THE ESTATE OF ATA TIANA JEFFERSON, DEC EASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1

Dal las County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR
- 19
- 03438
- 1



### O RDER The reporter’s record is overdue. By letter dated November 12, 2019, the Court instructed appellant to provide, within ten days, proof that he has requested preparation of the reporter’s record and paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee. We cautioned appellant that failure to comply may result in an order that the appeal be submitted without the reporter’s record. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 37.3(c). As of today’s date, appellant has not responded. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal be submitted without the reporter’s record. See id

. Appellant shall file his brief on the merits by March 2, 2020

. /s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 354-355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31645]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 3 p.m. on Wednesday, January 8, 2025.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website 
at https://www.sec.gov.

[[Page 355]]

    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has 
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the 
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of 
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information, please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: December 31, 2024.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-31645 Filed 12-31-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```
Justin S. HEMLEPP and Mariah Bosetti-Hemlepp, Petitioners, v. Nanci X. RODRIGUEZ, Respondent.

Case No. 2D18-1504

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 8, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
# C_2021053EN.01002101.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 November 2020 — Soelia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

(Case C-609/20)

(2021/C 53/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Soelia SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Question referred

Does EU law preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as that in Article 26(2) and (3) of Decree-Law No 91/2014, as converted by Law No 116/2014, which significantly reduces or delays the payment of incentives already granted by law and defined on the basis of corresponding agreements concluded by undertakings generating electrical energy by means of photovoltaic conversion with Gestore dei servizi energetici SpA, a public company responsible for that process?

In particular, is that provision of national law compatible with the general principles of EU law relating to legitimate expectation, legal certainty, sincere cooperation and effectiveness, with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with Directive 2009/28/EC (1) and with the rules governing support schemes laid down in that directive, and with Article 216(2) TFEU, in particular in relation to the European Energy Charter Treaty?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).

---
# C_2021252EN.01003903.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/39

---

Order of the General Court of 29 April 2021 — Applia v Commission

(Case T-142/20) (1)

(2021/C 252/65)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---
# C_2021452EN.01003601.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — KN v EESC

(Case T-377/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Member of the EESC - OLAF investigation into allegations of psychological harassment - Decision to discharge a member from his or her supervisory and personnel management activities - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Measure taken in the interest of the service - Legal basis - Rights of the defence - Refusal to grant access to the annnexes to the OLAF report - Disclosure of the substance of the witness statements in the form of a summary - Liability)

(2021/C 452/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KN (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and M. Aboudi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, A. Carvajal García-Valdecasas and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the EESC of 9 June 2020 and, second, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders KN to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders KN to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

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

May 27, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00089

- CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF G.O.R., JR.,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015

- MH

- 0403

Kelly Cross, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The State has filed a motion to abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court. The motion asserts the trial court’s order refers to section 574.106(a

- 1)(2) of the Texas Health and Safety Code as the basis for its order compelling administration of psychoactive medication, while the trial court’s verbal ruling and the petition seeking the order refer to section 574.106(a

1)(1). The State requests this court to direct the trial court to clarify the basi s for its ruling. Appellant’s attorney is ORDERED to file a response to the State’s motion no later than ten days from the date of this order.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief J ustice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 27th day of May, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Cler k of Court
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 18 Filed 05/29/03 Page 1 of 2 PageID 123
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 18 Filed 05/29/03 Page 2 of 2 PageID 124
Order entered August 20, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00328-CR

CHRISTINA MARIE EMMERT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-00776-Y

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On July 10, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. On August 19, 2013, we received the reporter’s record. 

Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the July 10, 2013 order 

requiring findings.

We note that none of the exhibits admitted into evidence were filed with the reporter’s 

record. Accordingly, we ORDER Sharon Hazlewood, official court reporter of the Criminal 

District Court No. 7, to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental 

record containing copies of State’s Exhibit nos. 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, and 5A.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief within FORTY-FIVE DAYS of the date of this 

order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Sharon 

Hazlewood, official court reporter, Criminal District Court No. 7, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
L.K. v. R.S.

2160250

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

August 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN RE: the INTEREST OF: F.N., I.O., Jr., and T.O., Appellant/Petitioner(s)

CASE NO.: 2D19-0958

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 01, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# C_2022128EN.01001902.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Van Walle v ECDC

(Case T-33/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - ECDC staff members - Appraisal report for 2018 - Freedom of expression - Obligation to state reasons - Case requiring a specific statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Right to be heard)

(2022/C 128/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ivo Van Walle (Järfälla, Sweden) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: J. Mannheim, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ivo Van Walle to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ivo Van Walle to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---
# C_2018032EN.01003201.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/32

---

Order of the General Court of 23 November 2017 — Nf Nails In Vogue v EUIPO — Nails & Beauty Factory (NAILS FACTORY)

(Case T-886/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2018/C 032/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nf Nails In Vogue, SL (Arganda del Rey, Spain) (represented by: L. Jáudenes Sánchez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and E. Scheffer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Nails & Beauty Factory GmbH, formerly Nails & Beauty Vertriebs GmbH (Kiel, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 (Case R 202/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nf Nails In Vogue and Nails & Beauty Vertriebs.

Operative part of the order

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. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Nf Nails In Vogue, SL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Nf Nails In Vogue, SL.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

1

---
#### John Norris, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 16, 1927.

*L. V. Trueman,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred H. Davis,*.Attorney General, and *Boy Campbell,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by.the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Hozell COLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1711

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.