alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020068EN.01001902.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/19

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 December 2019 — Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH v European Commission

(Case C-568/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(2), first indent - Exceptions to the right of access - Protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 6(1) - Application of the exceptions concerning requests for access to environmental information - Documents drawn up by the European Commission under the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Refusal of access - Subsequent transmission of the documents requested - Article 149 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - No further interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 68/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and D. Jacob, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

| 2. | The European Commission shall pay the costs incurred in the present appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall pay the costs incurred in the present appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.

---
* The court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-41202

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WINDY RAINEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:96-CR-9-2

- - - - - - - - - -

April 29, 1997

Before Wisdom, King, and Smith, Circuit Judges,

PER CURIAM:*

Windy Rainey argues that the district court (1) erred in

determining the drug quantity attributable to her under the

sentencing guidelines and (2) erred in refusing to reduce her

offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 based on her minor role in

the offense.

We have reviewed the record, including the presentence

report, the briefs and the transcript of the sentencing hearing,
No. 96-41202

- 2 -

1 See United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1575 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1113, 1825 (1995).

2 See United States v. Tremelling, 43 F.3d 148, 152-53

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1990 (1995).

and find that the district court’s determination that Rainey was

accountable for 250.20 grams of cocaine base was not clearly

erroneous.1 We further find that the district court did not err

in refusing to make an adjustment for Rainey’s role in the

offense.2

AFFIRMED
# C_2019295EN.01002201.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2019 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-598/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure made by Italy - Delays and negligence attributable to bodies of the Member State - Burden placed on the Member State of the financial consequences of the lack of recovery - Financial corrections - Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Article 12 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 - Reasonable time)

(2019/C 295/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G Palmieri, acting as Agent, and initially by: P. Pucciariello, subsequently by: F. Varrone, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017 L 165, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

---
# C_2020103EN.01000301.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against TX, UW

(Case C-688/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Presumption of innocence and right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings - Article 8(1) and (2) - Conditions laid down by national law in order to hold a trial in absentia - Non-appearance of accused persons at certain hearings for reasons either within or beyond their control - Right to fair legal process)

(2020/C 103/03)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties in the main proceedings

TX, UW

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides, in a situation where the accused person has been informed, in due time, of his trial and of the consequences of not appearing at that trial, and where that person was represented by a mandated lawyer appointed by him, that his right to be present at his trial is not infringed where:

| — | he decided unequivocally not to appear at one of the hearings held in connection with his trial; or |
| --- | --- |

—

he decided unequivocally not to appear at one of the hearings held in connection with his trial; or

| — | he did not appear at one of those hearings for a reason beyond his control if, following that hearing, he was informed of the steps taken in his absence and, with full knowledge of the situation, decided and stated either that he would not call the lawfulness of those steps into question in reliance on his non-appearance, or that he wished to participate in those steps, leading the national court hearing the case to repeat those steps, in particular by conducting a further examination of a witness, in which the accused person was given the opportunity to participate fully. |
| --- | --- |

—

he did not appear at one of those hearings for a reason beyond his control if, following that hearing, he was informed of the steps taken in his absence and, with full knowledge of the situation, decided and stated either that he would not call the lawfulness of those steps into question in reliance on his non-appearance, or that he wished to participate in those steps, leading the national court hearing the case to repeat those steps, in particular by conducting a further examination of a witness, in which the accused person was given the opportunity to participate fully.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Esteban GARCIA-GUILLEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-40931

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 3, 2013.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*244Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Esteban Garcia-Guillen pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to 46 months in prison. Garcia-Guillen now appeals the district court’s imposition of a 16-level enhancement for a prior crime of violence pursuant to § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. However, conceding that his sole issue on appeal is foreclosed by circuit precedent, he moves for summary disposition.

Garcia-Guillen contends that his prior conviction for burglary of a habitation under Texas Penal Code § 30.02 does not constitute a crime of violence for purposes of the § 2L1.2 enhancement. As Garcia-Guillen concedes, he did not raise this argument in the district court, so our review is for plain error. *See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.2009). Garcia-Guillen asserts that the Texas offense of burglary of a habitation does not constitute burglary of a dwelling because it defines a dwelling owner as including a person with a greater right to possession. According to Garcia-Guillen, this “greater right to possession” theory is unique to Texas and makes the offense broader than generic burglary.

We recently rejected a materially indistinguishable argument. *See United States v. Morales-Mota,*704 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2374, 185 L.Ed.2d 1091 (2013). In light of *Morales-Mota,*the district court did not commit any error, plain or otherwise, in imposing the enhancement.

The motion for summary disposition is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union, Appellant, v New York State Department of Taxation and Finance et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 9, 2012;

decided January 12, 2012

Reported below, 85 AD3d 415.

Motion by Federal Housing Finance Agency for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 11, 2013

NO. 03

- 13

- 00489

- CV

Larry Dewayne Garrett, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES , JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

IT APPEARING to this Court that the appellant has neither paid, nor made arrangements to pay

for the clerk’s record; has not submitted a status report regar ding this appeal , and, accordingly,

has failed to prosecute the appeal: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that

the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
EXHIBIT 32.2CERTIFICATION 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 China Digital Ventures Corporation a Nevada
    corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the six months period ending March
    31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
    "Report"), Bing He, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the
    best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
    China Digital Ventures Corporation, and will be retained by China Digital Ventures
    Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
    request.Dated: November 20, 2009
    /s/ Bing HeBing He
    (Chief Financial Officer)
# C_2018341EN.01001204.xml

| 24.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/12

---

Order of the President of the Court of 26 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — FS v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-173/18) (1)

(2018/C 341/22)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

---
# C_2019044EN.01003301.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Fulia Trading (LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE)

(Case T-373/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE - Earlier EU figurative mark LV - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark))

(2019/C 44/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fulia Trading Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Karpierz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 (Case R 1567/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Louis Vuitton Malletier and Fulia Trading.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 March 2017 (Case R 1567/2016-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 March 2017 (Case R 1567/2016-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier;

| 3. | Orders Fulia Trading Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Fulia Trading Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

---
# C_2019054EN.01003402.xml

| 11.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/34

---

Order of the General Court of 7 December 2018 — Kampete v Council

(Case T-140/17) (1)

(2019/C 54/50)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

---
# C_2018052EN.01004201.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/42

---

Action brought on 22 December 2017 — Carbon System Verwaltungs v EUIPO (LIGHTBOUNCE)

(Case T-825/17)

(2018/C 052/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Carbon System Verwaltungs GmbH (Marktheidenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Gilch and L. Petri, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LIGHTBOUNCE’ — Application No 15 152 028

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2017 in Case R 2301/2016-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2017 (R 2301/2016-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2017 (R 2301/2016-1);

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001.

---
AFH Holding III, Inc. 10-Q





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 the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFH Holding III, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending March 311, 2011, I, Amir F. Heshmatpour, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:





1.           Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: May 16, 2011





/s/ Amir F. HeshmatpourAmir F. HeshmatpourPresident, Secretary and Sole Director(Principal Executive Officer)

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
alamoex101.htm


Exhibit 10.1 


 







  





1











  









 




  





2











  









 




  





3











  









 




  





4











  









 




  





5











  









6
Exhibit 10.28





THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE




OF ALL THE SHARES




OF CAPITAL STOCK OF COLLINS CONSTRUCTION, INC.




THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF ALL THE SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK OF COLLINS CONSTRUCTION, INC. (" Third Amendment") is made and entered into by and between COLLINS CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Colorado corporation ("Collins"), FRANK W. COLLINS and JOSHUA GOODSELL ("Sellers") and GEOBIO ENERGY, INC., a publicly-traded Colorado corporation ("Purchaser"), WITNESSETH:




WHEREAS, the parties entered into that certain Agreement for the Purchase of All the Shares of Capital Stock of Collins Construction, Inc., having an effective date of March 31, 2010 as amended by the First Amendment to Agreement for the Purchase of All the Shares of Capital Stock of Collins Construction, Inc. dated June 1, 2010 and the Second Amendment to Agreement for the Purchase of All the Shares of Capital Stock of Collins Construction, Inc. (the "Purchase Agreement"); and




WHEREAS, in accordance with the Second Amendment tothe Purchase Agreement, Purchaser elected toextend the Closing Date until September 15, 2010; and




WHEREAS, the parties are desirous of further extending Closing as set forth below.




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereto agree toamend the Purchase Agreement as follows:




1. Closing will take place on or before November 30, 2010.




2. All other terms, conditions and provisions of the Purchase Agreement shall remain the same and in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict between the Purchase Agreement and this Third Amendment, the terms and conditions of this Third Amendment shall control.




This document may be executed in various counterparts, and when all parties have executed a copy hereof, the executed copies taken together shall be deemed to be the full and complete agreement of the parties.




The signature of any party transmitted electronically shall be deemed as valid and binding as all original signature.




[Signatures follow on next page]














IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Third Amendment the _____ day of September, 2010.




SELLERS:                                                                BUYER:




_____________________                                                                GEOBIO ENERGY, INC.,


Frank W. Collins, President                                                                           a publicly-tradedColorado Corporation





_____________________                                                                By:


Joshua Goodsell








COLLINS CONSTRUCTION, INC.


a Colorado corporation





By: ___________________________


Frank W. Collins, President