alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016191EN.01004001.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/40

---

Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Mundipharma v EUIPO — Multipharma (MULTIPHARMA)

(Case T-144/16)

(2016/C 191/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mundipharma AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Multipharma SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MULTIPHARMA’ — Application for registration No 9 537 887

Trade mark at issue:

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Proceedings before EUIPO:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2016 in Case R 2950/2014-1

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 of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

Plea in law

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

—

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

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

| b.   | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                    | HemoBioTech,    Inc. |                                                                                |
|-------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |                 |                                                                                |   |
| Date:      May 13, 2008 | By:                  | /s/ Mark      J. Rosenblum                                                     |   |
|                    |                 | Name:      Mark J. Rosenblum                                                        |   |
|                    |                 | Title:      Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting    Officer) |   |
|                    |                 |                                                                                |   |
STATE of Louisiana v. Bradley B. PARVEZ

No. 2018-K-1240

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted in part. Defendant was found guilty of manslaughter in response to a charge of second degree murder. The district court sentenced him to serve 25 years imprisonment at hard labor. The district court ordered that the first 20 years of the sentence be served without parole eligibility pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 893.3(E). The State did not object to or seek review of the sentence. The court of appeal, however, found as an error patent that the sentence was illegally lenient because it did not restrict parole eligibility for the entire 25-year term of imprisonment. Therefore, the court of appeal affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing. *State v. Parvez* , 17-0809 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/20/18), 249 So.3d 102. The court of appeal erred in its sua sponte determination that the sentence is illegally lenient.

Code of Criminal Procedure art. 893.3 provides for mandatory minimum sentences for felonies and specifically enumerated felonies when an offender possesses a firearm (Paragraph A), uses a firearm (Paragraph B), discharges a firearm (Paragraph C), or uses or discharges a firearm and causes bodily injury (Paragraph D) during the commission of the crime. The article also provides mandatory minimum sentences for specifically enumerated violent felonies when an offender commits the violent felony with a firearm or discharges a firearm during the commission of the violent felony (Paragraph E). In each of these instances, however, La.C.Cr.P. art. 893.3 merely provides for mandatory minimum sentences. *See* *State v. Lee* , 02-1793, pp. 47-49 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 970, 999-1000, *writ denied* , 03-1247 (La. 10/10/03), 855 So.2d 330. In doing so, the article is written so that the mandatory minimum sentences provided therein do not exceed the maximum sentences for the offenses a defendant is convicted of beyond a reasonable doubt, in an effort to remain within constitutional parameters. *See generally* *Apprendi v. New Jersey* , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Paragraph E(2) provides that a sentence imposed under Paragraph E shall be imposed without parole eligibility. The *sentence* referenced in that provision is, in its context, the *mandatory minimum sentence* , and must necessarily be so if the provision is to avoid conflicting with *Apprendi* . Thus, the sentence imposed by the district court here of 25 years imprisonment at hard labor without parole eligibility for the first 20 years fully comports with La.C.Cr.P. art. 893.3. Therefore, we reverse the court of appeal to the extent it found this sentence is illegally lenient and it remanded for resentencing.

**REVERSED IN PART**

Hughes, J., would grant and docket.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, 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.

February 24 , 2015 

# Order

Clerk Feb r uary 24 , 2015

149599 (8 6 )

BANK OF AMERICA, N

. A

. , Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 149599

v COA: 307756

Oakland CC: 2010

- 112606

- CK

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE

COMPANY, PATRIOT TITLE AGENCY, KIRK

D. SCHIEB, WESTMINSTER ABSTRACT

COMPANY, WESTMINSTER TITLE AGENCY,

INC., PRIME FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.,

VALENTINO M. TRABUCCHI, PAMELA S.

NOTTURNO, f/k/a PAMELA S. SIIRA,

DOUGLAS K. SMITH, JOSHUA J. GRIGGS,

STATE VALUE APPRAISALS, LLC, NATHAN

B. HOGAN, and CHRISTINE D. MAYS,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

FRED MATSON, MICHAEL LYNETT, JO KAY

JAMES, and PAUL SMITH,

Def endants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of the defendants

- appellees to extend the

time for filing their brief is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if

submitt ed on or before March 25 , 2015.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, 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 16, 2015

a0909 

# Order

Clerk September 16, 2015

151196

JAMES WADE,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151196

COA: 317531

Iosco CC: 13

- 007515

- NH

WILLIAM MCCADIE, D.O. and ST. JOSEPH

HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. d/b/a HALE ST.

JOSEPH MEDICAL CLINIC,

Defendants

- Appellants.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the Jan uary 29, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order

addressing: (1) whether the 91

- day extension provided in MCL 600.2912d(3) for filing

an affidavit of merit applies where the plaintiff claims that the defendants did not produce

all medical records within 56 days after receipt of the notice of intent as required by MCL

600.2912b(5); (2) whether the defendants were obligated, under MCL 600.2912b(5), to

explain to the plaintiff that certain records could not be produced because they had been

destroyed; and (3) whether billing records are medica l records for purposes of MCL

600.2912b(5). The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application

papers.
Robert MCKINNON III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4052

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jerry HELMS, an individual, and Mario Rizzi, an individual, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Bryan MILK, an individual, Michael R. Kelly, an individual, Lisa Kelly, an individual, Progressive Auto Management, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Progressive Auto Center, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and BML, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Case No. 2D18-748

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 12, 2019

Daniel Simon, Kubs Lalchandani and James M. Slater of Lalchandani Simon PL, Miami, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Gregory N. Woods and Rachel A. Kerlek of Woods, Weidenmiller, Michetti & Rudnick, LLP, Naples, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant Bryan Milk.

Edmond E. Koester, Alex R. Figares and Matthew B. Devisse of Coleman,

Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., Naples, for Appellees/ Cross-Appellants Michael R. Kelly, Lisa Kelly, Progressive Auto Management, Inc., Progressive Auto Center, Inc., and BML, LLC.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
# C_2018328EN.01001901.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo v ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund

(Case C-338/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency - Directive 2008/94/EC - Articles 3 and 4 - Employees’ claims borne by guarantee institutions - Limitation on the liability of guarantee institutions - Exclusion of wage claims arising over three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings))

(2018/C 328/23)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo

Defendant:‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Article 4(1) of the Zakon za garantiranite vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite pri nesastoyatelnost na rabotodatelia (Law on employees’ guaranteed claims in the event of the employer’s insolvency), which does not guarantee the wage claims of employees whose employment relationship ended more than three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings in respect of their employer.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

---
Tracy VINCE and Joann Vince on Behalf of Southland Express, LLC v. METRO REDISCOUNT COMPANY, INC., Brian Brennan and Frank J. Adolf

No. 2018-C-2056

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 25, 2019

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM

The purpose of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the petition. **Scheffler v. Adams and Reese, LLP** , 06-1774 (La. 2/22/07), 950 So.2d 641. The peremptory exception of no cause of action is triable on the face of the pleadings, and, for purposes of resolving issues raised by the exception, the well-pleaded facts in the petition must be accepted as true. **Scheffler,** 950 So.2d at 646. Thus, to determine whether the trial court erred in granting the defendants' Exception of No Cause of Action, we must accept all facts alleged in the petition as true. **Veroline v. Priority One EMS** , 09-1040 (La. 10/9/09), 18 So.3d 1273, 1275.

The CA noted that, in the supplemental and amending petition, with respect to defendant Brennan, applicants allege:

> When payments received by Southland from Metro began to be returned from the bank as non-sufficient, Southland contacted Metro, through **defendants** , Frank Adolf **and** Brian Brennan, and requested they immediately cease accepting payments from Southland's customers. Those requests were ignored. **Defendants** , despite knowing that they had no authority to do so, **continued to fraudulently collect Southland customer payments** and failed to notify Southland that they were collecting customer payments **on accounts never assigned to them** and for which Metro had no authority to endorse. Defendants continued to submit checks to Southland that defendants knew were not backed by sufficient funds and would not be honored, thereby misrepresenting their value to Southland. **Adolf and Brennan, acting through Metro, intentionally deceived and defrauded Southland through these worthless** *442**checks and the continued unauthorized collection of payments owed to Southland** .

> * * * *

> The **scheme of intentional fraud by Frank J. Adolph and Brian Brennan** , performed through Metro, makes them personally liable for the damages caused thereby and all amounts owed to third party creditors such as plaintiffs herein as well as attorneys' fees and punitive damages as permitted by law. (Emphasis added.)

**Vince on Behalf of Southland Express, LLC v. Metro Rediscount Company, Inc.** , 18-237 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/14/18), 259 So.3d 1221 (*unpublished opinion* ).

The allegations of the petition are sufficient to assert a cause of action. As such, the ruling of the lower courts, sustaining the exception of no cause of action, is reversed. The exception of no cause of action is denied, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

**REVERSED AND REMANDED.**

Guidry, J., recused.

Clark, J., and Crichton, J., would deny.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 23, 2009

d0316 

# Order

March 23, 2009

136797(60)

GWANJUN KIM,Plaintiff/CounterDefendant-Appellant,

and

KEESOO KIM, Plaintiff,

v SC: 136797 COA: 277362 Kent CC: 07-000187-CZ RONALD C. WERNETTE, JR., and BON GOU LEE,Defendants/CounterPlaintiffs-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for r econsideration of this Court’s October 27, 2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****NATIONAL INTERSTATE CORPORATION****SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATIONS**I, Alan R. Spachman, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Interstate Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter 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 mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.May 9, 2006     BY: /s/ Alan R. Spachman Alan R. Spachman    Chairman of the Board and President    (Principal Executive Officer)  
23
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

S TATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

T YEREL DARNEL LUKE , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA-CR 21-0002 PRPC

P etition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR1995-008176 The Honorable Jay R. Adleman, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Tyerel Darnel Luke , Florence Petitioner

M EMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge David B. Gass, Judge Michael J. Brown, and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 7-29-2021STATE v. LUKE Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Tyerel Darnel Luke seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief. This is petitioner’s sixth petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of d iscretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant revie w and deny relief.
The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1746

___________

Elmer Webb, Sr., *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri.

Pulitzer Publishing Company; Joseph *

Pulitzer, IV, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: July 24, 1997

 Filed: July 29, 1997

____________

Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Elmer Webb, Sr., appeals from the district court's order granting summary

1

judgment against Webb in his age discrimination action filed under Title VII, the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act, and state law. After carefully reviewing the record

and the parties' arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court's rulings were
-2-

clearly correct, and that an opinion would lack precedential value. Accordingly, we

affirm. We also deny Webb's pending motions. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 7, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1226 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1035, K2025-1034.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00052 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P