alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Joseph F. Fischer, Appellant, v Karen A. Fischer, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 586]

*555In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Pessala, J.), dated October 4, 2004, which, upon denying his objections to an order of the same court (Watson, S.M.), dated May 24, 2004, denied his petition, in effect, to vacate judgments entered against him on October 20, 1998, in the total sum of $13,775.50, and on July 18, 2000, in the total sum of $24,775, upon his defaults in appearing.

Ordered that the order dated October 4, 2004, is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the objections are sustained, the petition is granted, the order dated May 24, 2004, and the judgments are vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated into their 1997 judgment of divorce, the father was required to pay child support in the sum of $1,250 per month for the parties’ two infant children. Subsequently, the father, who has a history of bipolar disorder, depression, and suicide attempts, defaulted on his support obligation, and judgments were entered against him in 1998 and 2000.

The judgments should have been vacated because no inquiry was held as to the possible need for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the father. When read together, CPLR 1201 and 1203 require, before a judgment may be entered on default, such an appointment for an adult who is incapable of adequately protecting his or her rights *(see State of New York v Kama,*267 AD2d 225 [1999]). The mother does not dispute that she was on notice that the father suffered from a mental disability. Accordingly, the court should have made a suitable inquiry into whether a guardian ad litem was needed before judgment could be entered. As the court failed to do so, the judgments should have been vacated *(see State of New York v Kama, supra; Sarfaty v Sarfaty,*83 AD2d 748 [1981]). Because there is a question as to whether the father was capable of adequately defending his rights, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Nassau County, to determine if a guardian ad litem should be appointed (see CPLR 1201, 1202; *Shad v Shad,*167 AD2d 532 [1990]), and for any necessary proceedings thereafter. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.
# C_2023321EN.01006301.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/63

---

Action brought on 25 July 2023 — Chiquita Brands v EUIPO — Compagnie financière de participation (Device of blue and yellow ovaloid shape)

(Case T-426/23)

(2023/C 321/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Chiquita Brands LLC (Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States) (represented by: R. Dissmann and L. Jones, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie financière de participation (Marseille, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Device of blue and yellow ovaloid shape — European Union trade mark No 7 497 191

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2023 in Case R 2243/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and reject the application for declaration of invalidity to the extent the trade mark at issue was declared invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and reject the application for declaration of invalidity to the extent the trade mark at issue was declared invalid;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 4 and 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the inherent distinctiveness of the trade mark at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 4 and 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the inherent distinctiveness of the trade mark at issue;

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the acquired distinctiveness of the trade mark at issue. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the acquired distinctiveness of the trade mark at issue.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1998
<CASH>                                         1416673
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         2679639
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    6613964
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          289874
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            293000
<LOANS>                                       32505488
<ALLOWANCE>                                      85000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                44834861
<DEPOSITS>                                    31944901
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             327670
<LONG-TERM>                                    6500341
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3317
<OTHER-SE>                                     6058632
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                44834861
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                1235989
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               103878
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                283257
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               1623124
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              753355
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              877578
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           745546
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     7000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                7309
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 583285
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 242885
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      153155
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    153155
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     .04
<LOANS-NON>                                     169000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 81000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     3200
<RECOVERIES>                                       200
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                85000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             25500
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          59500
STATE of North Carolina v. Joe ARMSTRONG.

No. 271P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Joe Armstrong, Pro Se.

LaToya B. Powell, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th day of May 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3704 

To authorize additional Federal Bureau of Investigation field agents to 

investigate financial crimes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2008 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize additional Federal Bureau of Investigation field 

agents to investigate financial crimes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FBI Priorities Act of 

5 2008’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the 

9 premier Federal crime-fighting agency in the United 

10 States. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3704 IS

1 (2) Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Bu2 reau of Investigation understandably has redirected 

3 resources to counterterrorism and counterintelligence 

4 activities. 

5 (3) Criminal activity, including fraud, misrepre6 sentation, self-dealing, and insider trading, may have 

7 played a role in the financial industry upheaval of 

8 2008. 

9 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL AGENTS. 

10 There are authorized to be appropriated 

11 $150,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 

12 2013 to fund 1,000 Federal Bureau of Investigation field 

13 agents to investigate financial crimes. These agents shall 

14 be in addition to the number of field agents serving on 

15 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
**Exhibit32.1**

#### **CERTIFICATIONS OF PERIODIC REPORT**

I, John R. Serino,President and Chief Executive Officer of Encision Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

·                  theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of our for the quarterly period ended June 30,2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

·                  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of our operations.

Dated:    August 11, 2006
|        | /s/ John R.  Serino          |
|--------|------------------------------|
|   | John R. Serino               |
|   | Principal  Executive Officer |

 

I, Marcia McHaffie,Controller and Principal Accounting Officer of Encision Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

·                  theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of our for the quarterly period ended June 30,2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

·                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of our.

Dated:    August 11, 2006
|        | /s/ Marcia  McHaffie                                                      |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Marcia McHaffie                                                           |
|   | Controller,  Principal Accounting Officer and Principal Financial Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Reportof Crown Pacific Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven E. Dietrich, Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.

 
| /s/ Steven E. Dietrich                                                                               |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Steven E. Dietrich  Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer  Crown Pacific Partners, L.P. |
| August 14, 2002                                                                                      |

 

This certification is madesolely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any otherpurpose.

 

----
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 10/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 10/2014 of 7 January 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 10/2014                     

# of 7 January 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 7 January 2014.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Company:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 
333-74375) on Form S-8 of Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Company of our report 
dated January 19, 1999, except as to notes 22, 23, and 20 to the consolidated 
financial statements, which are as of February 16, 1999, March 10, 1999, and 
March 29, 1999, respectively, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Company as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' or members'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1998, annual report
on Form 10-K of Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Company.


                                       KPMG LLP
Los Angeles, California
March 29, 1999
David P. MAJORS v. Glenn A. MAJORS, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Patrick Hershel Majors and Patricia Majors Fowlkes.

No. 156P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

H. Clay Hodges, Donald J. Harris, Raleigh, for Glenn Majors, et al.

Donald D. Sayers, Salisbury, for David Majors.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of April 2008 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
STATE v. KELLY.

No. COA08-232.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Wayne (06CRS57862, 06CRS57863, 06CRS57864, 07CRS1251).

Case reported without published opinion. No. 06CRS057862, count 51, breaking or entering: No error. No. 06CRS057862, count 52, breaking or entering: no error. No. 06CRS057863, count 51, larceny after breaking or entering: No error. No. 06CRS057863, count 52, larceny after breaking or entering: Judgment of conviction reversed and sentence vacated. No. 06CRS057863, count 53, misdemeanor larceny: Judgment of conviction reversed and sentence vacated. No. 06CRS057864, count 51, felony possession of stolen goods: Judgment arrested. No. 06CRS057864, count 52, felony possession of stolen goods: Judgment arrested. No. 06CRS057864, count 53, misdemeanor possession of stolen goods, judgment arrested.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6522

J. ANGELO BARNES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JON P. GALLEY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:05-cv02943-AMD)

Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Angelo Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

J. Angelo Barnes seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barnes has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 606/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 606/2014 of 5 June 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 606/2014                     

# of 5 June 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 5 June 2014.

*For the Commission*,                           

*On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.