alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020036EN.01000901.xml

| 3.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena v Balema GmbH

(Case C-432/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Regulations (EC) No 510/2006 and (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 13(1) - Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 - Article 1 - Registration of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)’ - Protection of the non-geographical components of that name - Scope)

(2020/C 36/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena

Defendant: Balema GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 of 3 July 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)] must be interpreted as meaning that the protection of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ does not extend to the use of the individual non-geographical terms of that name.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---
# C_2017239EN.01005601.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/56

---

Action brought on 26 May 2017 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)

(Case T-328/17)

(2017/C 239/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board328 of Appeal: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board328 of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘BBQLOUMI’ — Application for registration No 13 069 034

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16/03/2017 in Case R 497/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

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.

---
#### Eddie E. SUTHERLAND, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 09-1243.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2010.

Decided: May 5, 2010.

Joel C. Cunningham, Jr., Joel C. Cunningham, Jr., P.C., Halifax, Virginia, for Appellant. Eric P. Kressman, Brian O’Donnell, Social Security Administration, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Beverly H. Zuckerman, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Julia C. Dudley, United States Attorney, Sara Bugbee Winn, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eddie Sutherland appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Commissioner and upholding the *288denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Sutherland v. Commissioner,*No. 4:08-cv00006-jlk-bwc, 2009 WL 331263 (W.D.Va. Feb. 10, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 23.2



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-40037, 333- 08603, 333- 48955) of Electro-Sensors, Inc. of our report dated January 27, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005, which appears on page 13 of this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006.



/s/ VIRCHOW, KRAUSE & COMPANY, LLP



Minneapolis, MN

March 22, 2007

36

---
# C_2005066EN.01000201.xml

| 18.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 66/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66/2

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2005/C 66/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Date of decision:

Member State: Germany

Aid No: N 376/2004

Title: Financial contributions for 2004-2013

Objective:: Maritime transport — To improve seafarers' skills

Legal basis:

Richtlinie zur Förderung der deutschen Seeschifffahrt vom 23. April 2004

Richtlinie zur Förderung der deutschen Seeschifffahrt vom 23. April 2004

Budget: EUR 4 million each year

Amount of aid: EUR 4 million

Duration: 2004-2013

Other information: The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ronnie Terrell WALTERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-3936.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 5, 2013.

Filed: Nov. 13, 2013.

Before LOKEN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ronnie Terrell Walters appeals the district court’s1 order denying his motion for attorney fees and costs, which he filed after criminal charges against him were dismissed without prejudice. Following careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Walters’s motion, given his failure to offer any evidence that the government’s position in prosecuting him was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith. *See United States v. Monson,*636 F.3d 435, 438-39 (8th Cir.2011) (standard of review; defendant’s burden of proof); *United*
      *720
      *States v. Porchay,*538 F.3d 704, 710 (8th Cir.2008) (evidentiary hearing is not required unless serious factual disputes surround application for attorney fees).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

. The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices 

# Order

November 26, 2014

148079 & (54)

LISA TYRA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148079

COA: 298444

Oakland CC: 2009

- 103111

- NH

ORGAN PROCUREMENT AGENCY OF

MICHIGAN, d/b/a GIFT OF LIFE

MICHIGAN,

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

STEVEN COHN, M.D., and WILLIAM

BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

DILLIP SAMARA PUNGAVAN, M.D.,

and JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

O n order of the Court, the motion to file supplemental authority brief is

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the August 15, 2013 judgment of the

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

whether to grant th e application or take other action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). At oral

argument, the parties shall address whether Zwiers v Growney, 286 Mich App 38 (2009),

was overruled by this Court’s decision in Driver v Naini, 490 Mich 239 (2011), and

whether the defendant’s affirmative defenses were defective because they did not

specifically state the grounds for the defense. The parties may file supplemental briefs

within 42 days of the date of this order, but they should not submit mere restatements of

their application papers.

We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the Court together

with the case of Tyra v Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan (Docket No. 148087).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.

November 26, 2014

t1119 2

Clerk Motions for permission to file briefs amicus curiae and briefs amicus curiae regarding

these two cases should be filed in Docket No. 148079 only.

We direct the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future

session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in Furr v McLeod (Docket No.

149344).
No. 420.

#### Alabama National Bank of Birmingham et al., Petitioners, *v.*Massasoit-Pocasset National Bank of Fall River, Mass.

October 19, 1908.

Petition for .a writ of •certiorari to the United Statés Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. y *Mr. John B. Knox*for petitioners. *Mr. Richard W. Walker*for respondent. 4'
Certification by the Chief Executive and Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as Adopted


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, Kelly T. Hickel, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TheraBiogen, Inc. for the quarter ended November 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TheraBiogen, Inc.





/s/ Kelly T. Hickel


Kelly T. Hickel


Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


January 19, 2010





This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not
be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
**EXHIBIT 23.6****CONSENT OF EXPERT**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”) of Ivanhoe Mines Ltd. (the“Company”) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.     I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name under the heading “Item 4: Descriptionof the Business – Qualified Persons” and disclosure of a scientific and technical nature pursuantto which I have acted in a supervisory capacity under the heading “Item 4: Description of theBusiness – Nariin Sukhait Coal Project” in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year endedDecember 31, 2005, dated March 30, 2006, and in the 40-F.Sincerely,     */s/ StevenKerr*     Name: Steven Kerr, CPG  Title: Senior Geologist       Date: March 30, 2006
(81 South. 676)

#### LOWERY et ux. v. GREEN, Superintendent of Banks.

(5 Div. 714.)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 1, 1919.

Equity <&wkey; 148(3) — Pleading — Multifariousness.

Under Code 1907, § 3095, a bill seeking to have a conveyance declared a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, and, in the alternative, to have the same annulled as fraudulent and void, is not subject to the objection of multifariousness.

Appeal from Circuit Court, in Equity, Chilton County; Leon McCord, Judge.

Bill by D. F. Green, as Superintendent of Banks, against W. R. Lowery and wife. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

The affairs of the Union State Bank, a corporation in Chilton county, Ala., are in the hands of the superintendent of banks of this state for liquidation, as provided by statute, and the court has taken jurisdiction of the administration of said trust. Said bank was a creditor of W. R. Lowery on April 25, 1914 (subsequently reduced to judgment by the superintendent of banks); and on April 25th W. R. Lowery conveyed to his wife, Arena Lowery, certain real estate described in Exhibit C to the original bill.

The bill in this cause was filed by the superintendent of banks against W. R. Lowery and his wife, and, as amended, seeks to have said conveyances declared a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, and, if mistaken in this relief, in the alternative, to have the same declared fraudulent and void as against creditors and canceled by the .court.

The respondents demurred to the bill upon the ground of multifariousness. The demurrer was overruled, and from this decree this appeal is prosecuted.

*9X Osmond Middleton, of Mobile, for appellants.

Lawrence E. Gerald, of Clanton, for appellee.

GARDNER, J.

Counsel for appellant insist that the bill as amended is multifarious, in that it seeks to have the conveyance here assailed declared a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, and in the alternative to have the same annulled as fraudulent and void. This is the only question presented upon this appeal.

The authorities relied upon antedate the adoption of the Code of 1907. It is now well settled by our decisions that, under the influence of section 3095 of the Code of 1907, such a bill is not subject to the objection of multifariousness. Smith v. Young, 173 Ala. 190, 55 South. 425; D. W. Baker et al. v. Gate City Coffin Co. (present term) 203 Ala. 6, 81 South. 674.

The dedree of the court below will be here alfilrmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. X, and MeCLELLAN and SAYRE, JX, concur.
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Atlas America Public #10 Ltd. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Nancy J. McGurk, Chief Financial Officer of the Managing General Partner,
certify, 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 Partnership.


                                                /s/ Nancy J. McGurk
                                                ------------------------------
                                                Nancy J. McGurk
                                                Chief Financial Officer of the
                                                Managing General Partner
                                                March 29, 2004
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dameon Lamont DUNLAP, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-7070.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 16, 2013.

Decided: Oct. 2, 2013.

Dameon Lamont Dunlap, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Kevin Zolot, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dameon Lamont Dunlap seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his untimely Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability -will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dunlap has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Dunlap’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:

> (1) newly discovered evidence that ... would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reason*274able factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or

> (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp.2018). Dunlap’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, June 13, 2001, 8:30 a.m. to June 15, 2001, 5 p.m. Hawthorne Suites, 300 Meredith Drive, Durham, NC, 27713 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on May 15, 2001, FR 66: 268731.                

The starting date and time of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis Panel will change to June 12, 2001, at 8:30 p.m., from the previously advertised June 13, at 8:30 a.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: May 23, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-13543  Filed 5-29-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed November 15, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1469

Lower Tribunal No. 18-24415

________________

Robert A. Tucker, etc.,

Appellant,

vs.

Ali Ebadian, etc., et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. 

Rodriguez, Judge.

Hunker Paxton Appeals & Trials, and Thomas L. Hunker and V. 

Ashley Paxton (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

Dearr Perdigon, and Craig R. Dearr and Wendy S. Rounds, for 

appellees Ali Ebadian and Shahrouz Ebadian; Bales Sommers & Klein, 

P.A., and Jason Klein and Richard M. Bales, Jr., for appellee Phiston 

Technologies, Inc.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES, and HENDON, JJ. 
2

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# CE2011236EN.01015901.xml

| 12.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 236/159 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 236/159

---

Tuesday 15 June 2010Proposal for a decision on the setting up and numerical strength of the Delegation to the CARIFORUM-EU Parliamentary Committee

P7_TA(2010)0211

European Parliament decision of 15 June 2010 on the setting up and numerical strength of the Delegation to the CARIFORUM-EU Parliamentary Committee

2011/C 236 E/30

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Constituent Act of 29 December 2008 of the CARIFORUM-EU Parliamentary Committee,

having regard to Rule 198 of its Rules of Procedure,

| 1. | Decides to set up a Delegation to the CARIFORUM-EU Parliamentary Committee; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Decides to set up a Delegation to the CARIFORUM-EU Parliamentary Committee;

| 2. | Decides that the numerical strength of the delegation shall be 15 full members; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Decides that the numerical strength of the delegation shall be 15 full members;

| 3. | Decides that nine members shall be taken from the Committee on International Trade and six from the Committee on Development; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Decides that nine members shall be taken from the Committee on International Trade and six from the Committee on Development;

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission for information. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission for information.

---