alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011139EN.01001001.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2011 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-51/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Sign composed exclusively of numerals - Application for registration of the sign ‘1000’ as a mark in respect of brochures, periodicals and newspapers - Allegedly descriptive character of that sign - Criteria for the application of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Obligation on OHIM to take into account its previous decision-making practice)

2011/C 139/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Case T-298/06 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 August 2006 in Case R 447/2006-4 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing to register the word mark ‘1000’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 28 and 41 — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol

OHIM

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

1

---
II-00142

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Janet J. Slobin <janetjs@comcast.net>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 6:16 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.

Janet J. Slobin

2340 NW Brewer Lane

Portland, OR 97229-9325
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34703-34704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16358]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases;

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.


[[Page 34704]]


    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: August 8, 2001.
    Time: 9:30 am to 5:00 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn--Chevy Chase, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, 
Bethesda, MD 20815.
    Contact Person: Aftab A. Ansari, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institutes of Health, NIAMS, Natcher Bldg., 
Room 5As25N, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4952.


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 21, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-16358 Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Opinion issued March 18 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 2
- 0 1123
- CR

——————————— MICHAEL KEITH COSLETT , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 56 th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12CR0266

MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found a ppellant, Michael Keith Coslett , guilty of the offense of burglary of a habitation. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 30.02(a)(1), (c)(2) (West 2011). The jury then found the allegation in an enhancement paragraph true and2

sentenced him to 11 years in prison. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 12.32, 12.42(b ) (West 2011). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’ s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the recor d presents no reversible error and the appeal
is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396 (1967)

. Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by pre senting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority

. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 ; see also High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) . Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that
warrant reversal. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State , 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). After independently reviewing the entire record in this appeal , we conclude
that no reversible error exists in the record , there are no arguable grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous

. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (e mphasizing that reviewing court

— and not counsel

— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whet her appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must d etermine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,3

826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ( same); Mitchell , 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record)

. We
note that a n appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n. 6.
W e affirm the judgment of the trial court and gr ant counsel’s motion to
withdraw. * Attorney Steven Hershkowitz must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of th e notice with the Clerk of this Court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justice s Keyes, Bland , and Brown

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).

* Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson , 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)

.
# C_2009312EN.01003002.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/30

---

Action brought on 22 June 2009 — Labate v Commission

(Case T-389/09)

2009/C 312/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kay Labate (Tarquinia, Italy) (represented by: I. Forrester, QC)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | find that there has been a failure to act on the part of the Commission within the meaning of Article 232 EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that there has been a failure to act on the part of the Commission within the meaning of Article 232 EC;

| — | order the Commission to take the measure necessary to comply with Tribunal’s order; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to take the measure necessary to comply with Tribunal’s order;

| — | accord to the present action appropriate priority, so as to avoid burdening the file with a separate request for expedited treatment and to render judgment within six weeks; |
| --- | --- |

—

accord to the present action appropriate priority, so as to avoid burdening the file with a separate request for expedited treatment and to render judgment within six weeks;

| — | order such other or further remedies as justice may require; |
| --- | --- |

—

order such other or further remedies as justice may require;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present action. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 20 February 2009, the applicant made a formal request for the purpose of Article 232 EC that the Commission take a decision recognising the occupational nature of her late husband’s lung cancer for the purpose of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the Joint Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease.

In the absence of any such decision or any adoption of position within the required time-limit, the applicant requests that the Court find that the Commission, by failing to take a decision within a reasonable time on her husband’s occupational disease recognition request, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations and Article 23 of the Joint Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease and is therefore liable for failure to act within the meaning of Article 232 EC.

---
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

          I, Abdo H. Khoury, President and Chief Financial Officer of ARV Assisted Living, Inc., Managing General Partner of American Retirement Villas Properties III (the“Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|   | (a)    | the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and                |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|   | (b)    | the information contained in the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, which this certification accompanies, fairly presents, in allmaterial aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |

 

| /s/ ABDO H. KHOURY                                                                                                |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                                                   |   |
| **Abdo H. Khoury  President and Chief Financial Officer of  ARV Assisted Living, Inc.  Managing General Partner** |   |
| **August 14, 2003**                                                                                               |   |

The foregoing certification accompanied the Form 10-Q filing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350.  It isbeing reproduced herein for information only.  It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant, whether madebefore or after hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2009244EN.01001101.xml

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/11

---

Action brought on 3 August 2009 — CIVR and Others v Commission

(Case T-303/09)

2009/C 244/17

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Conseil interprofessionnel des vins du Roussillon — CIVR (Perpignan, France), Comité national des interprofessions des vins à appellation d’origine et à indication géographique — CNIV (Paris, France), Interprofession nationale porcine — Inaporc (Paris) and Others (Perpignan, France) (represented by: H. Calvet, O. Billard and Y. Trifounovitch, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 10 December 2008 State aid N 561/2008 — France — Actions led by inter-branch organisations, C(2008) 7846 final, (1) inasmuch as it found the actions led by the agricultural inter-branch organisations in technical assistance, production and marketing aid for quality products, research and development and marketing to be State aid and inasmuch as it found compulsory voluntary levies used to finance those actions to be State resources; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 10 December 2008 State aid N 561/2008 — France — Actions led by inter-branch organisations, C(2008) 7846 final, (1) inasmuch as it found the actions led by the agricultural inter-branch organisations in technical assistance, production and marketing aid for quality products, research and development and marketing to be State aid and inasmuch as it found compulsory voluntary levies used to finance those actions to be State resources;

1

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission had found that the framework scheme of actions liable to be carried out by the French agricultural inter-branch organisations, consisting in aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing for quality products, for research and development and marketing for primary producers and undertakings engaged in processing and marketing agricultural products, financed through voluntary levies made compulsory by inter-ministerial decree, to be collected from the members of those inter-branch organisations, were a measure constituting State aid compatible with the common market.

The pleas in law and principal arguments relied on by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission.

CNIEL

Commission

---

(1)  OJ 2009, C 116, p. 14.

1

---
# C_2009113EN.01004801.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/48

---

Action brought on 16 March 2009 — Van Neyghem v Council

(Case F-25/09)

2009/C 113/102

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kris van Neyghem (Tienen, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 for the 2008 promotion year and, so far as necessary, of the decisions to promote officials of lesser merit to that grade.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 for the 2008 promotion year and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote officials of lesser merit to that grade; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 for the 2008 promotion year and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote officials of lesser merit to that grade;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---
# C_2012049EN.01002201.xml

| 18.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2011 — European Commission v Austrian Republic

(Case C-568/10) (1)

1

2012/C 49/38

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.

1

---
David MINOR, petitioner, v. Beverly HASTINGS, et al.

No. 17-7634.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Lewis WILLIAMSON, petitioner, v. MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY, et al.

No. 17-7435.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky denied.
Joe COLEMAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9585.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Steven Shane HORTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6910.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 11

- 4572

_____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. TERRANCE WILLIAMS,

a/k/a Terrence Williams Terrance Williams, Appellant

_____________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (D.C. Crim. No. 09

- cr - 00717

- 001 ) District Judge: Honorable R. Barclay Surrick

____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 17 , 2013

____________ Before: SMITH, CHAGARES and BARRY, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: February 5, 2013 )

____________ OPINION

____________ BARRY, Circuit Judge Appellant Terrance Williams (“Williams”) pled guilty to possessio n of a firearm2 by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(e). Before his sentencing, Williams filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea , which the District Court
denied

. The District Court sentenced him to 180 months ’ imprisonm ent , followed by
three years of supervised release

. On appeal, Williams argues that the District Court : (1 ) abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea; (2) erred in concluding that the government provided sufficient evidence t o qualify Williams as an armed career criminal; and (3) erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment

. We have considered the record in this case and the e xtensive briefs submitted to

us
. Because we write primarily for the parties, we see no reaso n to reprise the facts of this case and the arguments raised on appeal

. Suffice it to say that , substantially for the reasons set forth by the District Court, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams’ motion to withdraw his guil ty plea after concluding that he had not shown “a ‘fair and just reason’ for the withdrawal of his plea.” United States v. King , 604 F.3d 125, 139 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)). 1

1 Williams states in connection with his appeal of the denial of that motion tha t he “is not challenging per se ineffective representation ” before the District Court. Appellant’s Br. 20. T o the extent that his use of the term “per se” may appear to be a veiled suggestion to the contrary, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, on a record this bereft of evidence in that re gard , can only be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Thornton , 327 F.3d 268, 271

- 72 (3d Cir. 2003). We conclude, as well, that Williams’ claim that the Di strict Court erred in finding the recidivist
enhancement of the Armed Career Criminal Act , 18 U.S.C . § 924(e), applicable to him, and his arguments addressed to the indictment, are barred by what we find was Williams’3 knowing and voluntary waiver of appeal , the enforcement of which would not work a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Gwi n nett , 483 F.3d 200, 206 (3d Cir. 2007). The judgment of sentence will be affirmed.
Phillip CASCIOLA, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-7624.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District denied.