alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011194EN.01000801.xml

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-479/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 1999/30/EC - Pollution control - Limit values for concentrations of PM10 in ambient air)

10

2011/C 194/10

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and K. Simonsson, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41) — PM10 particles exceeding limit values in ambient air in zones SW 2 and SW 4 in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and in zone SW 5 in 2005 and 2006.

10

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by exceeding the limit values for concentrations of PMlO in ambient air from 2005 to 2007 in zones SW 2 and SW 4 and in 2005 and 2006 in zone SW 5, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by exceeding the limit values for concentrations of PMlO in ambient air from 2005 to 2007 in zones SW 2 and SW 4 and in 2005 and 2006 in zone SW 5, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air;

lO

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

1

---
II-O0071

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Maria Williams <marucha5960@hotmail.com>

Monday, December 6, 2010 10:03 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.

Maria Williams

2820 Utah NE

Albuquerque, NM 87110
# FILED
June 19, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON JUNE 1997 SESSION

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9607-CC-00239 Appellee, ) ) MADISON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. FRANKLIN MURCHISON, ) JUDGE WILLIAM HERB ERT STITTS, ) ) (Vandalism Under $500) Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : GEORGE MORTON GOOGE JOHN KNOX WALKUP Public Defender Attorney General & Repor ter DANIEL J. TA

YLOR ELLEN H. POLLACK Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney Gener al 227 West Baltimore 450 James Robertson Parkwa y Jackson, Tennessee 38301 Nashville, Tennessee 37243- 0493 JAMES G. WOODALL District Attorney General DONALD H. A

LLEN Assistant District A

ttorney General P.O. Box 2825 Jackson, Tennessee 38302

OPINION FILED: __________________

AFFIRMED- RULE 20

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

ORDER2 The defendant, William H. Stitts, appeals as of rig ht a jury convicti on of vandalism of property under $500. He was sentenced to el even (11) months and twenty-nine (29) da

ys in the local jail . The sole issue for revi ew is whether the evidence is sufficient to sus tain the conviction. We affirm the judgment of the t rial court pursuant to Rule 20 of thi s Court.

I. The facts of this case involv e the defendant’s actions in respon se to a general sessions judge’s decis ion to hold him in custody until he posted bond. The judge, court administrator, a pol ice officer, and an attorney pr esent in the courtroom provided testimony at trial. The eyewitnesses testified that , following the judge’s ruling, the defendant knocked ov er his chair and was upset and irritated. He w as then escorted out of the courtroom. E ach witness testified that they saw the defendant approach the door before the gl ass shattered and heard the defendant make derogatory comments. As he approached the door, he pulled his hand back and rammed his fist through the g lass plate in the door. The defendant did not off er any proof at trial.

II. The defendant argues the evidence w as insufficient to sustain the con viction of vandalism. Since the ey ewitnesses saw the d efendant “over [their] shoul der” or “through the door”, he cont ends that they were not i n a position to see him hit the glass door. As the defendant was escorted to leave, the judge testified that he saw the motion from defendant’s arm or f ist in the corner of his eye, and then the glass broke. The court administrator who was seated to the right of the judge and closest to the shattered door saw the defendant pull his arm back and put it through the glass window in the door. The police officer stated that the defen dant “took his fist and just broke the window.” An attorney testified that she was “looking right at the3

defendant” when he put his hand thr ough the glass windo

w. As stated by the tr

ial judge, “Well, he did it. There wasn’t any question about it. That’s all there i s to it.” We agree. The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED pursuant to R ule 20 of this Court.

________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE CONCUR:

__________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUD GE

___________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
Michael JAY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7596.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Jose NUNEZ-GARCIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6426.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Bryan W. BATES, petitioner, v. Charlotte JENKINS, Warden.

No. 15-9577.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Waseem DAKER, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 16-9531.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
# C_2009244EN.01000701.xml

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/7

---

Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH)

(Case T-289/09)

2009/C 244/11

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Omnicare, Inc. (Covington, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Applicants:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Astellas Pharma GmbH (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH) (Heidelberg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

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 14 May 2009 in case R 401/2008-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 May 2009 in case R 401/2008-4; and

| — | Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH’, for services in class 42

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in classes 35, 41 and 42

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that: (a) the trade marks concerned were similar; (b) that there was genuine use of the trade mark cited in the opposition proceedings; (c) that the services for which genuine use had been shown were similar; and (d) that, as a consequence, there existed a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

Pleas in law:

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6134

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL JOHN MAISEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00003-JPB-JPM-1)

Submitted: September 13, 2021 Decided: September 30, 2021

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael John Maisey, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Michael Adkins, Assistant United States

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael John Maisey appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for 

reconsideration of the court’s order denying his second motion for compassionate release

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 

115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. “[T]he Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 

do not specifically provide for motions for reconsideration and prescribe the time in which 

they must be filed.” Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 362, 364 (4th Cir. 

1985). The Supreme Court, however, has held that a motion for reconsideration extends 

the time for filing a notice of appeal in a criminal case if the motion is filed before the order 

sought to be reconsidered becomes final. See United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1, 4 n.2 

(1991) (per curiam) (holding that would-be appellant who files timely motion for 

reconsideration from criminal judgment is entitled to full time period for noticing appeal 

after motion for reconsideration has been decided). By extension, a motion for 

reconsideration in a criminal case is untimely when it is filed outside the appeal period for 

the underlying order or judgment. 

Here, the 14-day appeal period for the order denying Maisey’s second motion for 

compassionate release expired on October 15, 2020. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). 

Maisey filed his first motion for reconsideration on November 9, 2020, and his second 

motion for reconsideration on January 12, 2021, both outside the appeal period for the 
3

underlying order.*

 We therefore affirm the district court’s orders denying Maisey’s 

motions for reconsideration on the ground that the motions were untimely.

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.

AFFIRMED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the motions 

for reconsideration are the earliest dates they could have been properly delivered to prison 

officials for mailing to the court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) 

(establishing prison mailbox rule).
Antonio JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8178.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

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

No. 17-7800.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Samuel R. NEEL, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 17-8299.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Jaime GONZALEZ, petitioner, v. Clark E. DUCART, Warden.

No. 16-9739.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP99-301-020]

Take notice that on June 4, 2001, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), tendered for filing and approval a Service Agreement between ANR and NG Energy Trading, L.L.C. (NG Energy) pursuant to ANR's Rate Schedule FSS (the Agreement).

ANR states that the Agreement contains a negotiated rate arrangement between ANR and NG Energy to be effective June 1, 2001 through May 31, 2006 and contains a right to extend the term for one additional year upon specified circumstances. ANR requests that the Commission accept and approve the Agreement to be effective June 1, 2001.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-15233  Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Blake SANDLAIN, petitioner, v. Nicole ENGLISH, Warden.

No. 17-8070.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
# L_2005239EN.01003001.xml

| 15.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 239/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 239/30

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 55/2005

of 29 April 2005

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 43/2005 of 11 March 2005 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 43/2005 of 11 March 2005 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/2004 of 22 April 2004 adapting certain regulations concerning organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (2), as corrected by OJ L 344, 20.11.2004, p. 40, is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/2004 of 22 April 2004 adapting certain regulations concerning organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (2), as corrected by OJ L 344, 20.11.2004, p. 40, is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 54b (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91) of Chapter XII of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32004 R 0746: Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/2004 of 22 April 2004 (OJ L 122, 26.4.2004, p. 10), as corrected by OJ L 344, 20.11.2004, p. 40.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32004 R 0746: Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/2004 of 22 April 2004 (OJ L 122, 26.4.2004, p. 10), as corrected by OJ L 344, 20.11.2004, p. 40.’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EC) No 746/2004, as corrected by OJ L 344, 20.11.2004, p. 40, in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 30 April 2005, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 29 April 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Richard WRIGHT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 198, 28.7.2005, p. 45.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 122, 26.4.2004, p. 10.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
# C_2012165EN.01000601.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS v European Commission

(Case C-549/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Dominant position - Abuse - Market for machines for the collection of used beverage containers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Exclusivity agreements, quantity commitments and loyalty rebates)

2012/C 165/09

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, advocaat, J. Midthjell, advokat and A. J. Ryan, solicitor)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-155/06 Tomra Systems ASA and Others v European Commission dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 March 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.113 — Prokent/Tomra) imposing a fine of EUR 24 million on the appellants for abusing their dominant position by engaging in practices involving exclusivity agreements, quantity commitments and loyalty rebates in order to prevent or delay the entry of other manufacturers on the market for machines for the collection of used beverage containers in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, and, in the alternative, an application for annulment or substantial reduction of the fine.

Tomra Systems ASA and Others

European Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB and Tomra Butikksystemer AS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB and Tomra Butikksystemer AS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.

1

---
Monice McKee ANDERSON, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-7683.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Lawrence F. CURTIN, petitioner, v. RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.

No. 17-5060.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District denied.
# FEB 05  0704AM

CDR420

Line-In Record

Other

388.09735