alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016402EN.01005101.xml

| 31.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/51

---

Action brought on 30 August 2016 — The Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic)

(Case T-620/16)

(2016/C 402/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Logistical Approach BV (Uden, the Netherlands) (represented by: R. Milchior, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Idea Groupe (Montoir de Bretagne, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘Idealogistic’– Application for registration No 12 318 234

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20/06/2016 in Case R 1435/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

principally, annul the contested decision;

| — | alternatively, amend the contested decision in that it wrongly confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the registration of the mark 012318234 for the services ‘Consultancy in the field of logistics, including route selection, storage facilities and selection of means of transport’; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, amend the contested decision in that it wrongly confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the registration of the mark 012318234 for the services ‘Consultancy in the field of logistics, including route selection, storage facilities and selection of means of transport’;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2016392EN.01004201.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/42

---

Action brought on 4 August 2016 — Šroubárna Ždánice v Council

(Case T-442/16)

(2016/C 392/55)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Šroubárna Ždánice a.s. (Kyjov, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Osladil, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | find that the European Union is obliged to pay the applicant the sum of CZK 75 502 534 as compensation for damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the European Union is obliged to pay the applicant the sum of CZK 75 502 534 as compensation for damage;

| — | order the European Union to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that all the conditions are satisfied for the non-contractual liability for damage of the European Union to be established in accordance with Article 268 TFEU in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU:

| — | by imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, later extended to imports from Malaysia, the European Union breached its obligations arising from membership of the WTO, specifically laid down in the Anti-Dumping Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

—

by imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, later extended to imports from Malaysia, the European Union breached its obligations arising from membership of the WTO, specifically laid down in the Anti-Dumping Agreement;

| — | breaching the Anti-Dumping Agreement produced a breach of Article 216(2) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

breaching the Anti-Dumping Agreement produced a breach of Article 216(2) TFEU;

| — | as a result of the unlawful action by the European Union, the applicant incurred damage in the amount of CZK 75 502 534; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a result of the unlawful action by the European Union, the applicant incurred damage in the amount of CZK 75 502 534;

| — | there was a causal relationship between the amount of damage and the unlawful conduct of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

there was a causal relationship between the amount of damage and the unlawful conduct of the European Union.

---
# C_2017249EN.01001102.xml

| 31.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — OL v PQ

(Case C-111/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility - International child abduction - Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 11 - Application for return - Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of an infant - Child born, as agreed by her parents, in a Member State other than that where they were habitually resident - Child continuing to reside for the first months of her life in the Member State of her birth - Mother’s decision not to return to the Member State where the couple had been habitually resident))

(2017/C 249/16)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OL

Defendant: PQ

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation, such as that in the main proceedings, where a child has been born and has lived continuously with her mother for several months, in accordance with the joint wishes of her parents, in a Member State other than that where those parents were habitually resident before her birth, the initial intention of the parents with respect to the return of the mother, together with the child, to the latter Member State cannot allow the conclusion that that child was ‘habitually resident’ there, within the meaning of that regulation.

Consequently, in such a situation, the refusal of the mother to return to the latter Member State together with the child cannot be considered to be a ‘wrongful removal or retention’ of the child, within the meaning of Article 11(1).

---

(1)  
  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

---
Jonathan Lee GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-50

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
^cotS

(frflf:fJAk/AAi/)0 WAFF(D (aiYIEAo V UAmamtha (L LMm&njp 

### JT FJLFD PAJD-$'e "ZF$PojJ/)FaJ7T Q/llfy/JALJJjU&tUBt , &CAI&11AL JJ&JML/ HJ^MISMpM—Oe-^T^^MJI^^/mCA/IC£AA^.PJU^UJ2—AijO.L6£AJ-



### ^ fkJAM£A P/LMC/lj KFQUFt^T fvn /Jtyfi/AfFruferAlT Of /Jit 4nv/?A/ty Ai^jmLJL^EMME^ /^S^mM^TZ,^£IJAd^T7()A/ Pf AiAJULL&



### ~7o Pfi*J Caff , (/A/iTWd/ljJ DfC'LA/iattom Of JPfMajofajT? T&ttJ/HOA/1/. J /liJPO llLFA fb/lATFLrPhlOk/^ O^fFF/lFAlCC rfu/l


### Ail t!kw*lAL-^^^ LhJML-JlM$s^jLB±Lo-u (huFJLjlFJjS .MAItfoOM If JoT Lf&ALjy JJvLQwik $ALk A/</ Of AAV , 

### (fito2.&ft>oA//l&JC(T. 12/F/LML I ATM (Mc '-JtAiMJMb TT.Atr A^ An.r Of M±Jfoj&m^^

WA/nwieAjr CsF LJUm/A/M ~(/kfF%£ 

### %MW PPT ; Tfwzutwu (JLir'• ft-/-*-&)••^1 -.i o o M. M O 0' <P as 11^



### Si

is $ s ©

&?1

9

1 $

IS
EXHIBIT 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SS.1350)

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
ss.1350), the undersigned, George Mellides, Acting Chief Financial Officer of
Essential Reality, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to his knowledge, that: The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
ended December 31, 2003 of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                /s/ George Mellides
                                                ------------------------------
                                                George Mellides
                                                Acting Chief Financial Officer

June 29, 2004
Case 3:00-cv-01801-G Document 482 Filed 01/13/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 2869
# C_2016118EN.01003901.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/39

---

Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-128/11 De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-75/16 P)

(2016/C 118/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Uphold the present appeal and, entirely reversing the order under appeal, annul points 1 and 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 1, 7 to 25, 51 to 52, 63 to 76, 80, 84, 87 to 88, 97 to 98 and 101 to 115 of the order itself; |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the present appeal and, entirely reversing the order under appeal, annul points 1 and 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 1, 7 to 25, 51 to 52, 63 to 76, 80, 84, 87 to 88, 97 to 98 and 101 to 115 of the order itself;

| — | Consequently, annul all the contested acts and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, annul all the contested acts and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs;

| — | Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-128/11).

De Nicola

European Investment Bank

The grounds of appeal and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-55/16 P De Nicola v European Investment Bank.

De Nicola

European Investment Bank

The appellant emphasises, in particular, that the heads of claim seeking annulment of the messages of 4 July and 12 August 2011 and annulment of the decision of 6 September 2011 rejecting the request to launch a conciliation procedure are admissible.

---
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00006-CR

John B. HAYES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-CR-5289

Honorable Juanita Vasquez-Gardner, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 3, 2010

DISMISSED

John B. Hayes pleaded nolo contendere to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and

pleaded true to an enhancement allegation pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. As part of his plea

bargain, Hayes signed a separate waiver of appeal. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance

with the agreement and signed a certificate stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant

has NO right of appeal.” See TEX.R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Hayes timely filed a notice of appeal. The
04-10-00006-CR

-2-

clerk’s record, which includes the plea bargain agreement and the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2)

certification, has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). This court must dismiss an appeal “if a

certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.”

Id.

The court gave Hayes notice that the appeal would be dismissed unless an amended trial

court certification showing he has the right to appeal were made part of the appellate record within

thirty days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet.

ref’d) (not designated for publication). Hayes’s appointed appellate counsel filed a written response,

stating she has reviewed the record and can find no right of appeal. After reviewing the record and

counsel’s notice, we agree that Hayes does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154

S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk’s record to

determine whether trial court’s certification is accurate). We therefore dismiss this appeal. TEX.R.

APP. P. 25.2(d). 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
Allyson Denise HAWKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2605

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Case 4:04-cv-00302-A Document 238 Filed 07/12/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID 6733
 

 Case 4:04-cv-00302-A Document 238 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID 6734
 

 Case 4:04-cv-00302-A Document 238 Filed 07/12/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID 6735
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                           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 Avaya Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Garry K. McGuire,
Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, Operations of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
    Company.

Garry K. McGuire
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS

February 12, 2003
Joseph LAWSON v. Warden Darrell VANNOY, Louisiana State Penitentiary

NO. 2019-KH-0374

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
Changes are Blacklined (====)

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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of
                          ==================
AquaCell Technologies,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB-A for
the year ended  June  30, 2004  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 operations of the Company.



Dated:  August 3, 2005         By: /s/ James C. Witham
        ==============             ------------------------------
                                       James C. Witham
                                       Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  August 3, 2005         By: /s/ Gary S. Wolff
        ==============             ------------------------------
                                       Gary S. Wolff
                                       Chief Financial Officer
Ex parte State

(In re: STATE v. Pamela Castro FARMER)

CR-16-1096

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
A.M. v. V.G. and M.G.

2160001

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Capital Growth Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Lee Wiskowski, the Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, I ,
Douglas Stukel, the Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company and, I, Derry L.
Behm, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  January 14, 2005


                                      /s/ Lee Wiskowski
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      Lee Wiskowski, Co-Chief Executive Officer

                                      /s/ Douglas Stukel
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      Douglas Stukel, Co-Chief Executive Officer

                                      /s/ Derry L.Behm
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      Derry L. Behm, Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
James R. SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-383

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 17, 2019]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Patrick B. Burke, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. Folley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Ciklin, Levine and Forst, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner

v.

GREGORY M. PALUMBO,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 2508 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 41 DB 2018

Attorney Registration No. 46466

(Delaware County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9 th day of August , 2018, upon consider ation of the

Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board

, Gregory M. Palumbo is placed on

temporary suspension until further action by this Court. See Pa.R.D.E. 208(f)(5). He

shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.

Respondent’s rights to petitio n for dissolution or amendment of this Order and to

request accelerated disposition of charges underlying this order are specifically

preserved. See Pa.R.D.E. 208(f)(4) and (f)(6).

The Order constitutes an imposition of public discipline with the meaning of

Pa.R.D.E. 402, pertaining to confidentiality.
Samuel L. WEATHERSPOON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1770

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# Leadership & Structure

The FBI is headed by a Director who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Bureau is organized into multiple branches that coordinate our activities around the world.

- Rachel Rojas Assistant Director, Insider Threat Office
- Jonathan Lenzner Chief of Staff
- Eric Vélez-Villar Assistant Director, Office of Private Sector
- Cathy L. Milhoan Assistant Director, Office of Public Affairs
- Timothy M. Dunham Assistant Director, Training Division
- Jennifer L. Moore Assistant Director, Security Division
- Christine O’Neill Assistant Director, Human Resources Division
- Timothy Langan Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division
- Robert Brown Executive Assistant Director, Science and Technology Branch
- Michael A. Christman Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
- Bryan A. Vorndran Assistant Director, Cyber Division
- Paul H. Haertel Assistant Director, Critical Incident Response Group
- Jason A. Jones General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel
- Caroline Otto Assistant Director, Resource Planning Office
- Regina Thompson Assistant Director, Victim Services Division
Case 5:04-cv-00071-J Document 1 Filed 10/29/03 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1
Case 5:04-cv-00071-J Document 1 Filed 10/29/03 Page 2 of 4 PageID 2
Case 5:04-cv-00071-J Document 1 Filed 10/29/03 Page 3 of 4 PageID 3
Case 5:04-cv-00071-J Document 1 Filed 10/29/03 Page 4 of 4 PageID 4