alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012109EN.01000301.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/3

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Köppl v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-590/10) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 91/439/EEC - Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) - Article 7(1) - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Withdrawal of national driving authorisation - Category B driving licence issued by another Member State - Disregard of the residence requirement - Subsequent issue, by the same Member State, of a Category C driving licence - Observance of the residence requirement - Whether obligatory to hold a valid licence for Category B vehicles at time of issue of licence for Category C vehicles)

2012/C 109/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolfgang Köppl

Applicant:

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation, in the light of Article 2(1) and Article 3(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Category B driving licence issued by a Member State, without regard to the residence requirement, to a national of another Member State after the withdrawal of his national licence and after the expiry of the period in which an application for a new licence is prohibited — Subsequent issue, by the same Member State, of a Category C driving licence respecting the residence requirement — Whether the Member State of residence can refuse to recognise the validity of those licences

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Commission Directive 2000/56/EC of 14 September 2000, do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise authorisations to drive Category B and C vehicles issued by another Member State to an individual in respect of whom the first Member State has adopted measures under Article 8(2) of that directive, where the authorisation to drive Category B vehicles was issued in the second Member State without regard, as is apparent from the details specified in the driving licence issued in respect of that authorisation, to the normal residence requirement laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of that directive and where the authorisation to drive Category C vehicles was issued on the basis of the first authorisation and the non-compliance with that normal residence requirement is not apparent in the new driving licence issued in respect of that authorisation to drive Category C vehicles.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.

1

---
Mark ZANA, petitioner, v. Dwight NEVEN, Warden, et al.

No. 17-7816.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Ray Leonard STAMPER, III, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8300.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstance s set forth in 5th Cir. Rule 47.5.4. 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________ No. 98-50486

______________________ CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST INTERNAL REVENUE EMPLOYEES;

LEXIE WHITE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; DAVID A. MADER, in his official capacity as Chief Management and Administration, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; SEAN ROGERS, in his official capacity as Chief Labor Relations,

Internal Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (A-97-CA-639-SS)

___________________________________________________________________ November 5, 1999
Before DUHÉ, 

### BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM: *


### AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. Rule 47.6.
Michael O. BROWN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9683.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Vicente QUIROZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-1206.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
James ZARYCHTA, Jr., petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-8124.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Jack R. Maurer, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of T REIT, Inc.; 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 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; b) 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 c) 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 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 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. /s/     jack R. MaurerJack R. MaurerChief Executive Officer
 Date: April 1, 2005
# C_2009312EN.01003802.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/38

---

Action brought on 14 October 2009 — Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK Ltd v OHIM — Sportfive (QUALIFIER)

(Case T-424/09)

2009/C 312/63

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sportfive GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 August 2009 in case R 1291/2008 4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 August 2009 in case R 1291/2008 4;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK Ltd

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark “QUALIFIER’ for goods in Class 12 (Application No 4 877 262)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sportfive GmbH & Co. KG

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark No 4 017 836 and German word mark No 30 415 017.1 ‘Qualifiers 2006’, German word/figurative mark No 30 414 610.2 ‘2006 QUALIFIERS’, the German word mark No 30 515 033.2 ‘Qualifiers 2008’ and German word/figurative mark Nr. 30 565 616.3 ‘2008 QUALIFIERS’, all registered inter alia for goods in Class 12

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allow the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in that there is a likelihood of confusion between the two marks

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

1155 21st Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20581 

Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) Meeting Agenda

July 19, 2023 

9:00 am – 10:45 am Eastern Time

9:00 am – 9:30 am Welcome and Opening 

Remarks

• Rostin Behnam, Chairman, CFTC, 

and AAC Sponsor 

• Kristin N. Johnson, Commissioner, 

CFTC 

• Christy Goldsmith Romero, 

Commissioner, CFTC 

• Summer K. Mersinger, Commissioner, 

CFTC 

• Caroline D. Pham, Commissioner, 

CFTC

9:30 am – 10:15 am Panel: Improving Access to Futures Markets

• Gerry Corcoran, FIA 

• Curt Strubhar, Grain and Feed 

Association of Illinois

• Layne Carlson, 

Minneapolis Grain Exchange 

Q&A and AAC Member Discussion

10:15 am – 10:40 am Presentation: Mississippi River Disruptions to 

Grain Flows and Markets 

• Susan Olson, Action Intel 

Q&A and AAC Member Discussion

10:40 am – 10:45 am Closing Remarks

10:45 am Meeting Adjourns
C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, petitioner, v. ARRIS GROUP, INC., et al.

No. 17-617.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

*1694Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Donald R. Walsh, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Avatech Solutions, Inc.;



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 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;



(b) 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



(c) 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 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 Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):



(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 17, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Donald R. Walsh                    
|                   |  |  |  |                                        
|                   |  |  |  | Donald R. Walsh Chief Executive Officer
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 15, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-11114

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NELSON SANDOVAL HERNANDEZ,

ADRIANA TERESA SANCHEZ GUTIERREZ,

Defendants-Appellants.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:02-CR-396-M-5

--------------------

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Nelson Sandoval Hernandez (Hernandez) appeals his conviction

for conspiring to possess over five kilograms of cocaine with the

intent to distribute, while Adriana Teresa Sanchez Gutierrez

(Gutierrez) appeals her convictions for the same drug conspiracy

and for conspiring to launder monetary instruments with the

proceeds of the drug conspiracy. Gutierrez contends that the

evidence was insufficient to support either of her convictions. 

After reviewing the record and the arguments of counsel, we hold
No. 03-11114

-2-

that a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence

established the essential elements of the offenses beyond a

reasonable doubt.

Gutierrez and Hernandez also contend that the district court

erred in denying their challenge to the jury panel, which was made

pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Their

conclusional assertion that the Government’s proffered race-neutral

reasons for striking minority jurors were pretextual is

insufficient to overcome the deference given to the district

court’s decision to accept those explanations. See United States

v. De La Rosa, 911 F.2d 985, 991 (5th Cir. 1990). The judgments of

conviction are AFFIRMED.
II-00359

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

robert cote <robertc68@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:11 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

robert cote

267 1/2 south 5th ave

Kankakee, IL 60901
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1651/2004

of 21 September 2004         

amending Regulation (EEC) No 2921/90 as regards the amount of the aid for the production of casein and caseinates from skimmed milk

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 15(b) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article (2)1 of Regulation (EEC) No 2921/90, ‘EUR 4,80’ is hereby replaced by ‘EUR 3,30’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 September 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 279, 11.10.1990, p. 22. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1325/2004 (OJ L 246, 20.7.2004, p. 21).

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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.

January 31, 2017

s0123 

# Order

Clerk January 31, 2017

153808(93)(94)(95)

PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153808

COA: 320559

Wayne CC: 13

- 008885

- FH

REGINALD DESHAWN WALKER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration and the motion to

amend are GRANTED. The motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 7,

2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Jack R. Maurer, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of T REIT, Inc.; 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 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; b) 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 c) 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 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 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. /s/     Jack R. MaurerJack R. MaurerChief Executive Officer
 Date: August 4, 2005