alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(June 13, 1985)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John D. Rivers, Appellant.

Per Curiam.

Motion for reargument of a decision of this court, dated January 31, 1985, which affirmed a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Monserrate, J.), rendered December 2, 1983.

On appeal to this court, the judgment rendered upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of forgery in the second degree and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the second degree was affirmed *(People v Rivers,*107 AD2d 977). Defendant now moves for reargument of our prior decision. With respect to his conviction of forgery in the second degree, defendant urges that his guilt was predicated on his signing an automobile rental agreement under the assumed name of “Trevor Gittens” and that, without more, this showing is legally insufficient to support his conviction of forgery in the second degree. Although defendant never raised this issue in his original appeal brief or at oral argument on December 11, 1984, he did challenge his conviction of forgery on the authority of *People v Johnson*(96 AD2d 1083, *affd*63 NY2d 888) in a letter to this court received *983on January 18, 1985. *Johnson*resulted in the reversal of a conviction of forgery in the second degree on facts nearly identical to those underlying defendant’s conviction. The reversal in *Johnson*was based on the failure of the prosecution to show either that the ostensible maker of the automobile lease agreement was real and that he did not authorize the making or that the actual maker represented that the assumed name belong to someone apart from him and that the fiction was intended to defraud. As in *Johnson,*the prosecution here made no attempt to prove that “Trevor Gittens” was real and did not authorize the use of his signature; nor did the prosecution attempt to prove that defendant represented “Trevor Gittens” to be anyone other than defendant himself.

In these circumstances, we consider defendant’s delay in raising the issue to be excusable and note that defendant preserved this issue for appeal by moving for dismissal at the close of the People’s evidence based upon the failure of the prosecutor to have proved a prima facie case.

We agree with defendant’s contention that *People v Johnson (supra)*mandates reversal of his conviction of forgery in the second degree. In the interest of justice, therefore, defendant’s motion for reargument is granted (GPL 470.50 [1]). Our prior decision insofar as it affirms the judgment convicting defendant of forgery in the second degree is rescinded and defendant’s conviction of forgery in the second degree is reversed and that charge dismissed.

Motion for reargument granted; decision dated January 31, 1985 rescinded to the extent that defendant’s conviction of the crime of forgery in the second degree was affirmed; and, on reargument, judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of forgery in the second degree and dismissing that count of the indictment, and, as so modified, affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr. and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### Ciro FLORES-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-73857.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

Manuel Rios, III, Rios & Cruz, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Geoffrey Forney, Jem C. Sponzo, Esquire, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, William Charles Peachey, Senior Litigation Counsel, Yamileth G. Handuber, DOJ-U.S. *419Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ciro Flores-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination, *Gutierrez v. Mukasey,*521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.2008), and review de novo questions of law, *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Flores-Flores did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where the record contains a Form 1-826, Notice of Rights and Request for Disposition, which indicates that Flores-Flores knowingly and voluntarily accepted voluntary departure. *Cf. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 614, 619-20 (9th Cir.2006) (insufficient evidence that alien knowingly and voluntarily accepted voluntary departure where record did not contain the Form 1-826 and petitioner’s testimony suggested that he accepted return due to misrepresentations by immigration officers).

Flores-Flores’ claim that the agency’s reliance on the Form 1-826 violated due process fails because Flores-Flores did not demonstrate prejudice. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

Flores-Flores’ remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2022024EN.01003501.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/35

---

Order of the General Court of 12 November 2021 — Proodeftiki v Commission

(Case T-271/19) (1)

(State aid - Applicant having ceased to reply to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 24/46)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Proodeftiki ATE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Panagopoulou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and L. Haasbeek, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits), Aftokinitodromos Kentrikis Elladas AE Parachorisis (Odos Kentrikis Elladas AE) (Lamia, Greece) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas and A. Kedikoglou, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 6717 final of 19 October 2018 on State Aid SA.50233 (2018/N) — Greece, declaring the State aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to Aftokinitodromos Kentrikis Elladas AE Parachorisis (Odos Kentrikis Elladas AE) for the construction of the Lamia-Xiniada section of the E65 motorway compatible with the internal market.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | Proodeftiki ATE is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Aftokinitodromos Kentrikis Elladas AE Parachorisis (Odos Kentrikis Elladas AE). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Proodeftiki ATE is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Aftokinitodromos Kentrikis Elladas AE Parachorisis (Odos Kentrikis Elladas AE).

| 3. | The Hellenic Republic is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Hellenic Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Jasmine Gregory, certify that:



(1)I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Premier Holding Corp..;





(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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the 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;





(c) 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





(d) 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(s) 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:  May 11, 2010 | Jasmine Gregory
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------- | ---------------------------------------
# C_2020175EN.01002001.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Maternus v EUIPO– adp Gauselmann (Jokers WILD Casino)

(Case T-321/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark Jokers WILD Casino - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No genuine use of the trade mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Maternus GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Zöbisch and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer, A. Söder and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel and K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2019 (Case R 803/2018-1), relating to revocation proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Maternus.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Maternus GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Maternus GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA 21-0143

Jill Marie Lotter,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

State of Montana,

Respondent and Appellee.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is 

given an extension of time until July 9, 2021 to prepare, file and serve the 

Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 17 2021

06/17/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0143
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         364,179
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               43,451,442
<ALLOWANCES>                                (3,411,064)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,225,955
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,448,886
<PP&E>                                      47,518,343
<DEPRECIATION>                             (19,189,427)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             163,804,951
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       53,051,721
<BONDS>                                    155,984,183
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        109
<COMMON>                                           164
<OTHER-SE>                                 (46,189,018)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               163,804,951
<SALES>                                    118,057,567
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           118,057,567
<CGS>                                      111,092,544
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              111,092,544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,665,953
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,700,930)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    53,135
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,754,065)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,754,065)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### In re GENMAR HOLDINGS, INC.; Carver Italia, LLC; Carver Yachts International, LLC; Genmar Minnesota, Inc.; Carver Industries, LLC; Genmar Florida, Inc.; Genmar Industries, Inc.; Genmar IP, LLC; Genmar Manufacturing of Kansas, Inc.; Genmar Michigan, LLC; Genmar Tennessee, Inc., Formerly doing business as Stratos Boats, Inc., also known as Champion Boats, also known as Hydra Sport Boats; Genmar Transportation, Inc.; Genmar Yacht Group, LLC, Formerly doing business as Carver Boat Corporation LLC, also known as Carver Boats, also known as Marquis Boats; Marine Media, LLC; Minstar, LLC; Triumph Boats, Inc., Triumph Boats; Triumph Boat Rentals, LLC; VEC Leasing Services, LLC; VEC Management Co., LLC; VEC Technology, Inc.; Windsor Craft Yachts, LLC; Wood Manufacturing Company, Inc., Debtors, *244David Scot Lynd, Appellant, v. Genmar Holdings, Inc.; Carver Italia, LLC; Carver Yachts International, LLC; Genmar Minnesota, Inc.; Carver Industries, LLC; Genmar Florida, Inc.; Genmar Industries, Inc.; Genmar IP, LLC; Genmar Manufacturing of Kansas, Inc.; Genmar Michigan, LLC; Genmar Tennessee, Inc.; Genmar Transportation, Inc.; Genmar Yacht Group, LLC; Marine Media, LLC; Minstar, LLC; Triumph Boats, Inc.; Triumph Boat Rentals, LLC; VEC Leasing Services, LLC; VEC Management Co., LLC; VEC Technology, Inc.; Windsor Craft Yachts, LLC; Wood Manufacturing Company, Inc., Appellees.

No. 11-1608.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 7, 2011.

Filed: Dec. 19, 2011.

David Scot Lynd, Mesquite, TX, pro se.

James L. Baillie, Douglas W. Kasseb-aum, Ryan Timothy Murphy, Fredrikson & Byron, Minneapolis, MN, Rebecca L. Peterson, Jennifer Gene Lurken, Maschka *&*Riedy, Mankato, MN, for Appellees.

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

David Scot Lynd appeals from an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) dismissing his appeal for failure to prosecute because he did not pay the filing fee. In his opening brief submitted to this Court, Lynd does not mention the filing-fee issue, addressing instead the merits of his underlying bankruptcy-court claim. Issues not raised in an opening brief are deemed waived. *See Jenkins v. Winter,*540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir.2008). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal because Lynd has not articulated any reason why the BAP’s dismissal order was improper and thus has not presented this court with any question for decision. *See Carter v. Lutheran Med. Ctr.,*87 F.3d 1025, 1026 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam); *Slack v. St. Louis Cnty. Gov’t,*919 F.2d 98, 99-100 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam).
# C_2022073EN.01003302.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — Dyson and Others v Commission

(Case T-127/19) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Energy - Directive 2010/30/EU - Indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 - Energy labelling of vacuum cleaners - Energy efficiency - Measurement method - Annulment by the General Court - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2022/C 73/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Dyson Ltd (Malmesbury, United Kingdom) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex (represented by: E. Batchelor, T. Selwyn Sharpe and M. Healy, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, Y. Marinova and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the unlawfulness of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Dyson Ltd and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dyson Ltd and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00152

- CR

Charles Raymond Sprague

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1410892D)

April 27

, 2017

Opinio n by Justice Meier

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the re was error in one of the trial court’s judgments. We vacate the trial court’s

judgment on C ount T wo. It is ordered that the remaining tri al court’s judgment is

affirmed

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier

Justice Bill Meier
EXHIBIT 32.1


Certification of Principal Executive Officer





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Metalline Mining Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: September 13, 2010
By
/s/ Gregory HahnGregory Hahn, President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         123,885
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     35,281
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          25,132
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            25,063
<LOANS>                                        813,575
<ALLOWANCE>                                     12,178
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,015,909
<DEPOSITS>                                     843,813
<SHORT-TERM>                                    61,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             11,248
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,163
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,015,909
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 77,310
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,807
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                85,117
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              40,206
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,310
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           41,807
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,300
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 19,015
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,132
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      21,132
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,477
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.94
<LOANS-NON>                                      8,332
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,574
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 10,152
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                10,885
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,124
<RECOVERIES>                                       117
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               12,178
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            12,178
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>