alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Daniel Johnson, Respondent, v New York State Board of Parole, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 222]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J), entered January 18, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment granted the petition, annulled the determination denying release on parole to petitioner, and ordered a de novo parole hearing before different members of respondent.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the petition, annulling the determination denying release on parole to petitioner, and ordering a de novo parole hearing before different members of respondent *(see Matter of Simmons v Travis,*15 AD3d 896 [2005]). “The record demonstrates that [respondent] considered the relevant statutory factors *(see*Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]) before concluding that petitioner is a serious threat to community safety and welfare and thus is not an acceptable candidate for release on parole” *(Matter of Raqiyb v*
      *1435
      *Donnelly,*307 AD2d 761, 761 [2003]). Further, respondent’s determination does not evince “irrationality bordering on impropriety,” and judicial intervention therefore is unwarranted *(Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]; *see Matter of Silmon v Travis,*95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000]; *Matter of Gaston v Berbary,*16 AD3d 1158, 1159 [2005]; *Raqiyb,*307 AD2d 761 [2003]). Present—Kehoe, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Smith and Hayes, JJ.
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 Agriculture

###### Foreign Agricultural Service 

# AGENCY:

Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice.

The Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), today accepted a petition filed by the Gollott's Oil Dock and Icehouse, Inc., Biloxi, Mississippi, for trade adjustment assistance. Gollott's represents Mississippi shrimpers. The Administrator will determine within 40 days whether or not imports of shrimp contributed importantly to a decline in domestic producer prices of more than 20 percent during the marketing year period beginning January 2003 through December 2003. If the determination is positive, all shrimp producers in Mississippi will be eligible to apply to the Farm Service Agency for technical assistance at no cost and for adjustment assistance payments. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jean-Louis Pajot, Coordinator, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, FAS, USDA, (202) 720-2916, e-mail:                         *trade.adjustment@fas.usda.gov*.                     

Dated: January 12, 2005. 

A. Ellen Terpstra, 

Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service. 

[FR Doc. 05-1749 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
EXHIBIT 23.3


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report on Oralabs
Holding Corp. dated February 24, 1999 in the Registration Statement on Form S-8,
as included in the Oralabs Holding Corp.'s Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended
December 31, 1998, and to all references to our firm included in such
Registration Statement.


                                        /s/  Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                         EHRHARDT KEEFE STEINER & HOTTMAN PC



February 7, 2000
Denver, Colorado
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-21-00103-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

236th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 236-304886-18

Before Kerr, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Womack, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE SOUTHGATE CONSTRUCTORS, A TEXAS JOINT VENTURE, KIEWIT 

INFRASTRUCTURE SOUTH CO., AND AUSTIN BRIDGE & ROAD, LP, 

Relators
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: April 16, 2021
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00515-CR

Eric Paul Khozindar

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From County Criminal Court No. 4

of Denton County (CR-2014-01347-Y)

May 28, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
YARRELL v. GRIFFIN.

No. 407P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC/Griffin.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of August 2007 by Plaintiff for "Notice of Appeal":

*881"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of October 2007."
# C_2023314EN.01001701.xml

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/17

---

Action brought on 14 July 2023 — Bodegas Aguiuncho v EUIPO — Mar de Frades (ALBARIÑO mar de ons)

(Case T-398/23)

(2023/C 314/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Aguiuncho, SL (Sanxenxo, Spain) (represented by: J.M. Diez Roig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mar de Frades, SL (Cartagena, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ALBARIÑO mar de ons — Application for registration No 18 408 426

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2023 in Case R 0164/2023-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul and vary the contested decision;

| — | grant the application for registration of the trade mark at issue in Class 33 of the Nice Classification, with the effects inherent in such a declaration. |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the application for registration of the trade mark at issue in Class 33 of the Nice Classification, with the effects inherent in such a declaration.

Pleas in law

| — | Interest in preserving availability. |
| --- | --- |

—

Interest in preserving availability.

| — | Peaceful coexistence of marks. |
| --- | --- |

—

Peaceful coexistence of marks.

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

| — | Failure to comply with the judgment of 24 June 2014, Rani Refreshments v OHIM — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani), T-523/12, not published, EU:T:2014:571. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to comply with the judgment of 24 June 2014, Rani Refreshments v OHIM — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani), T-523/12, not published, EU:T:2014:571.

| — | Distinctiveness of the graphic representation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Distinctiveness of the graphic representation.

---
# C_2023007EN.01004201.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/42

---

Action brought on 7 November 2022 — Dr. Neumann & Kindler v EUIPO — Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (LABCORP)

(Case T-673/22)

(2023/C 7/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Neumann & Kindler GmbH & Co. KG (Bochum, Germany) (represented by: T. Pfeifer and N. Gottschalk, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Burlington, North Carolina, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark LABCORP — Application No 15 174 766

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 August 2022 in Case R 182/2021-2

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 of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union and order the potential intervener to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union and order the potential intervener to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17775]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; Aonex 
Technologies, Inc.

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent 
to grant to Aonex Technologies, Inc., a revocable, non-assignable, 
exclusive license, to practice in the field of substrates for electro-
optical device processing comprised of thin films on polycrystalline 
materials, devices made using such substrates, manufacturing techniques 
utilizing such substrates, and methods for manufacturing such 
substrates in the United States and certain foreign countries, the 
Government-owned invention described in U.S. Patent No. 6,328,796: 
Single-Crystal Material on Non-Single-Crystalline Substrate, Navy Case 
No. 78,978 and in the field of substrates for electro-optical device 
processing comprised of thin films on substrates wherein at least one 
layer is polycrystalline, devices made using these substrates, 
manufacturing processes utilizing these substrates, and methods for 
manufacturing such substrates in the United States and certain foreign 
countries the Government-owned invention described in U.S. Patent No. 
6,497,763: Electronic Device with Composite Substrate, Navy Case No. 
82,672.

DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file 
written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later 
than September 23, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Research 
Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-
5320.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jane Kuhl, Head, Technology 
Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20375-5320, telephone (202) 767-3083. Due to U.S. Postal delays, 
please fax (202) 404-7920, E-Mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86edf3eeeac6f3f2e9f6efe7a8e8f4eaa8e8e7f0ffa8ebefea"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f09b85989cb085849f809991de9e829cde9e918689de9d999c">[email protected]</span></a> or use 
courier delivery to expedite response.

    Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404.

    Dated: August 31, 2005.
I.C. Le Moyne, Jr.,
Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Alternate 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-17775 Filed 9-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
*The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to the

applicable rules. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally

disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may

be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 8/16/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JUAN M. ALDRETE,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 96-3113

(D.C. No. 95-CV-3540)

(District of Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Juan Aldrete challenges, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, his conviction of

carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Relying on Bailey v. United

States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), appellant argues that he did not actively employ a firearm

with respect to the drug transaction in which he was involved. We affirm.

Appellant was indicted and pled guilty to distributing cocaine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18
- 2 -

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Appellant was arrested in the driver’s seat of his automobile while

attempting to sell about 11 ounces of cocaine to an undercover informant, and a loaded

handgun was found wedged in the front seat next to the appellant. Bailey has no bearing

on this case because appellant was charged only with the “carrying” prong of section

924(c). From the evidence, it is clear that appellant “carried” a firearm within the

meaning of § 924(c). See United States v. Miller, 84 F.3d 1258-60 (10th Cir. 1996). 

Appellant is not entitled to have his sentence vacated under § 2255.

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                 |  |                         
|-------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary               |  | Country of Incorporation
|                                 | 
|Active Power (Switzerland) AG    |  | Switzerland             
|                                 | 
|Active Power Solutions Limited   |  | United Kingdom          
|                                 | 
|Active Power (Germany) GmbH      |  | Germany                 
|                                 | 
|Active Power (Italy) SrL         |  | Italy                   
|                                 | 
|Active Power (Algeria) SARL      |  | Algeria                 
|                                 | 
|Active Power (Japan) KK          |  | Japan                   
|                                 | 
|Active Power (Hong Kong) Limited |  | Hong Kong
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 169 (Thursday, September 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 52108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17371]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families


Family and Youth Services Bureau; Positive Youth Development 
State and Local Collaboration Demonstration Projects

AGENCY: Family and Youth Services Bureau, Administration for Children 
and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Award announcement.

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

    CFDA#: The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for 
this program is 93.623. The title is the Positive Youth Development 
State and Local Collaboration Demonstration Projects.
    Legislative Authority: Grants for Runaway and Homeless Youth 
programs are authorized by the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (title 
III of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974), as 
amended by the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act 
of 1999, (Pub. L. 106-71).
    Amount of Award: $100,000 per grantee.
    Project Period: 9/30/04-9/29/05.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a noncompetitive grant supplement 
is being made to the following state agencies: State of Nebraska Health 
& Human Services, University of Kentucky Research Foundation, State of 
Oregon, New York Office of Children & Family Services, State of 
Louisiana, Iowa Dept. of Human Rights Criminal & Juvenile Justice, 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Illinois Department of Human Services, 
Governor's Office for Children Youth & Families. The purpose of this 
supplement is to support collaborations between state-level agencies 
and local community jurisdictions regarding positive development 
opportunities available to young people as approved in their original 
planning grant.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administration for Children and 
Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, 330 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20447, Courtney Workman--(202) 205-8657, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e88b9f879a83858986a8898b8ec680809bc68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8be8fce4f9e0e6eae5cbeae8eda5e3e3f8a5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 22, 2005.
Joan E. Ohl,
Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families.
[FR Doc. 05-17371 Filed 8-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOLAN v. COOKE

No. COA07-354

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 19, 2008.

Certification Date March 10, 2008.

Appeal from Warren (04CVS260).

Decision without published opinion. Dismissed.
Kate H. ELLISON, Plaintiff v. GAMBILL OIL COMPANY, INC., J. Gwyn Gambill, Incorporated, Jim Gambill, Gunvantpuri B. Gosai and B & B Mini Mart, Inc.; Arlis Tester d/b/a/ Testers Garage and Muffler Shop and/or Testers Shell & Muffler Shop, Defendants and J. Gwyn Gambill, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff Jeff Barrett, doing business as Barrett Petroleum Equipment, Third Party Defendant and Rudram Enterprises, Inc., Intervenor.

No. 541A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Warren A. Hutton, Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory, for Kate H. Ellison.

Stephen L. Palmer, Hickory, for Palmer.

Jimmy D. Reeves, M. Alexander Reeves, West Jefferson, for Gambill.

Frank C. Wilson, III, Boone, for Gosai & B&B.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 650 S.E.2d 819.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Plaintiff on the 6th day of November 2007 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th day of April 2008."

Plaintiff shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Plaintiffs new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more that 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 51283 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
P laintiff

- Appellee

v.
HEATHER LYNN GANTT , Defendan t

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:12

- CR

- 76

- 3

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Defendant

- Appellant Heather Lynn Gantt, federal prisoner # 00535

- 380, appeal s the denial of her motion for concurrent sentencing

. H er claims pertain to the manner in which her federal sentence w as calculated and is being

e nforced, so they arise under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

. See Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000) . Gantt is not incarcerated in the Western District of
Texas , so the district court lacked jurisdiction over any of her § 2241 claims

. See id. T he district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under t he limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 30, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-51283 Document: 00514255196 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2017
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 870/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 870/2014 of 11 August 2014 on criteria for applicants for rail infrastructure capacity            (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 870/2014                     

# of 11 August 2014

# on criteria for applicants for rail infrastructure capacity

# (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/10 of 6 January 2015 on criteria for applicants for rail infrastructure capacity                                 and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 870/2014 Text with EEA relevance.
EXHIBIT 32


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                        AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                          ALL-AMERICAN SPORTPARK, INC.
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB of All-American SportPark, Inc. for the quarter ending June
30, 2007:

     (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of All-
American SportPark, Inc.


Dated:  August 14, 2007



/s/ Ronald Boreta
Ronald Boreta
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) and
Principal Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to All-American SportPark, Inc.
and will be retained by All-American SportPark, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.