alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Council Decision (EU) 2015/2028Show full title

Council Decision (EU) 2015/2028 of 10 November 2015 appointing two German alternate members of the Committee of the Regions

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (EU) 2015/2028                     

# of 10 November 2015

# appointing two German alternate members of the Committee of the Regions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the German Government,

Whereas:

(1)On 26 January and on 5 February 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116(1) and (EU) 2015/190(2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January                              2020.

(2)Two alternate members' seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of                              Mr Roland HEINTZE and Mr Hermann KUHN,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The following are hereby appointed as alternate members to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term                     of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:                  
          -  Dr Henrike MÜLLER, *Mitglied der Bremischen Bürgerschaft*,                         
          -  Mr René GÖGGE, *Mitglied der Hamburgischen Bürgerschaft*.                         

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 10 November 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

P. Gramegna                            

1

OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42.                           

2

OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6253
ELLIS RICHARD DOUGLAS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED; PATRICIAWRIGHT, M.D., Medical Director, Maryland Penitentiary's Hospital; FAKUNLE, M.D. (Neurologist); MATHUR, M.D.; FLETCHER, D.D.S.; DAVIDSON, D.D.S, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA96-325-CCB) Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: June 3, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ellis Richard Douglas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Barry Chazen, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, BILLINGSLEY, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, P.A., Riverdale, Maryland; Benjamin Saul Vaughan, ARMSTRONG, DONOHUE & CEPPOS, CHARTERED, Rockville, Maryland; Christian Andrew Lodowski, WHARTON, LEVIN, EHRMANTRAUT, KLEIN & NASH, Annapolis, Maryland; James F. Rosner, Thomas Johns Whiteford, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Towson, Maryland; Roy Leonard Mason, MASON, KETTERMAN & MORGAN, Baltimore, Maryland; Deborah Maude Peyton, MASON, KETTERMAN & MORGAN, Hunt Valley, Maryland, for Appellees.23 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Douglas v. Prison Health Serv., Inc. , No. CA-96-325-CCB (D. Md. Feb. 7, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3605 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3605

  To extend the pilot program for volunteer groups to obtain criminal 
                       history background checks.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 26 (legislative day, September 17), 2008

  Mr. Reid (for Mr. Biden (for himself and Mr. Hatch)) introduced the 
following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, 
                               and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the pilot program for volunteer groups to obtain criminal 
                       history background checks.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Criminal History Background Checks 
Pilot Extension Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM.

    Section 108(a)(3)(A) of the PROTECT Act (42 U.S.C. 5119a note) is 
amended by striking ``a 66-month'' and inserting ``a 78-month''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           53746
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   135665
<ALLOWANCES>                                     22500
<INVENTORY>                                     101711
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                584974
<PP&E>                                         4581986
<DEPRECIATION>                                  124239
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5873339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3490382
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      14609199
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5873339
<SALES>                                        1674810
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1674810
<CGS>                                          1178257
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1178257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6774196
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              181422
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (7647215)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7647215)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             1318666
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6328549)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.60)



</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Omar Demetrious PEARSON.

No. 40P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Omar D. Pearson, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 28th day of January 2008 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Forsyth County:

*539"Dismissed by order of the Court in Conference this the 6th day of March 2008."
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of UNOVA, Inc. (the “Company”) for theperiod ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry D. Brady, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ LARRY D. BRADY         |     |
|----------------------------|----------|
| Larry D. Brady             |     |
| *Chief  Executive Officer* | * * |
| March 11,  2005       |     |

 

----
Loan
Agreement

    


    Party
A(Borrower):Harbin Humankind
Biology Technology Co., Limited

    


    Party
B(Lender):Xin
Sun

    ID
Number:23010219660523161X

    


    On the
basis of equality, voluntariness and negotiation, both Party A and Party B enter
into this agreement about the loan.

    


    
      I. Party
B loans RMB 700,000 to Party A and provides the loan before June 18,
2009.

    

    II. Interest: No Interest.

    III. Life
of Loan: No fixed terms of repayment.

    IV. Date
and Method of Payments: Party A will make the repayments in cash according to
the operation of its company.

    V. Settlements
of Diputes: apply for arbitration in local arbitration committee.

    VI. This
contract is taken into effect since signing date. This contract is executed in
two copies with the same legal effect. Both parties hold one copy
respectively.

    


    
      
        
          	
                  Party
      A(Seal):

                	
                  Party
      B:

                
	
                  Harbin
      Humankind Biology

                	 
      
	
                  Technology
      Co. Limited

                	
                  /s/
      Xin Sun

                
	 
      	 
      
	
                  Date:

                	
                  Date:
      June 17, 2009
POWER OF ATTORNEY

         Know all by these presents, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and
appoints  each of Adolph J. Ferro and Gilbert N.  Miller,  signing  singly,  the
undersigned's true and lawful attorney-in-fact to:

         1. Execute for and on behalf of the undersigned,  in the  undersigned's
capacity  as  a  director  of  Agritope,   Inc.,  a  Delaware  Corporation  (the
"Company"),  Forms 10-K, 10-Q or 8-K, and any amendments  thereto, in accordance
with Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
the rules and regulations thereunder.

         2. Do and perform any and all acts for and on behalf of the undersigned
which may be  necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such Form 10-K,
10-Q or 8-K,  and any  amendments  thereto,  and  timely  file  such  forms  and
amendments  with the United States  Securities  and Exchange  Commission and the
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. or similar authority.

         3. Take any other action of any type  whatsoever in connection with the
foregoing which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact,  may be of benefit to,
in the best  interest  of, or legally  required  by, the  undersigned,  it being
understood that the documents executed by such attorney-in-fact on behalf of the
undersigned  pursuant to this Power of Attorney  shall be in such form and shall
contain such terms and conditions as such  attorney-in-fact  may approve in such
attorney-in-fact's discretion.

         This Power of Attorney  shall remain in full force and effect until the
undersigned  is no  longer  required  to sign  Forms  10-K,  10-Q and  8-K,  and
amendments  thereto,  on behalf of the Company,  unless  earlier  revoked by the
undersigned in a signed writing delivered to the foregoing attorneys-in-fact.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney
to be executed as of this 19th day of December, 1998.



                                             /S/ W. Charles Armstrong
                                             -----------------------------------
STATE v. BRISTOL.

No. COA07-1018.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Rutherford (06CRS3214, 06CRS3215).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
ADCOX v. CLARKSON BROS. CONSTR. CO.

No. 222P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 2, 2015.

R. James Lore, Nicholas J. Dombalis, II, Raleigh, for Lore, R. James.

*889Kari L. Schultz, Wilmington, M. Duane Jones, Charlotte, for Clarkson Brothers Construction Company, et. al.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of July 2015 by Defendants for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd of July 2015."
# C_2023189EN.01004301.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/43

---

Action brought on 19 April 2023 — Studiocanal v EUIPO — Leonine Distribution (ARTHAUS)

(Case T-204/23)

(2023/C 189/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Studiocanal GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde and C. Zimmer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leonine Distribution GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘ARTHAUS’ — EU trade mark No 6 988 984

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2023 in Case R 1533/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it found the application for a declaration of invalidity to be admissible in the light of Article 59(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it found the application for a declaration of invalidity to be admissible in the light of Article 59(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 63(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 12(1)(b) and Article 15(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430.

---
HARLEYSVILLE INS. v. BUZZ OFF INSECT.

No. 272A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 3, 2009.

David L. Brown, John I. Malone, Jr., Martha P. Brown, Greensboro, for Harleysville Mutual Ins. Co.

Mack Sperling, John S. Buford, Greensboro, Cecilia O. Miller, Diana S. Casey, San Diego, CA, for International Garment Tech.

Gary K. Sue, Greensboro, Michael A. Hamilton, for Erie Insurance.

David Neal Allen, Charlotte, Theodore B. Smyth, Raleigh, for NC Assoc. of Defense Attys.

Joseph W. Eason, Stephen D. Martin, Raleigh, for Property Casualty Insurers Asso.

C. Douglas Maynard, Jr., Winston-Salem, John N. Ellison, Matthew D. Rosso, Whitney D. Clymer, Philadelphia, PA, Amy Bach, Mill Valley, CA, for United Policyholders.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of January 2009 by J. Scott Ballenger to be admitted Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of February 2009."
EX-10.10
                                Letter Agreement




September 28, 2000


3220 Executive Ridge Drive
Suite 100
Vista, California 92083

         Re: Teletrac, Inc.

Dear Mr. Kenneth Weisner:

Reference is made to that certain employment agreement dated as of September 29,
1999 (the "Employment Agreement") between you and Teletrac, Inc. (the "Company")
regarding the term of your employment with the Company. This will confirm our
understanding that the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

1.       Section 2 is hereby deleted and the following is inserted in its place:

         "2. Term of Employment. Unless earlier terminated as hereinafter
         provided, the term of the Employee's employment under this Agreement
         shall initially be for a period beginning on the Effective Date hereof
         and ending thirty-six months after the Effective Date. Thereafter, this
         Agreement will continue in full force and effect from year to year
         unless terminated by either the Employee or the Company by written
         notice given to the other not later than two months before the end of
         the year of such termination. The period from the date hereof until the
         date the Employee's employment hereunder is terminated (whether
         thirty-six months after the Effective Date or earlier or later as
         provided herein) is hereinafter called the "Employment Term."

2.       Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, nothing herein shall
         affect or be deemed to affect any provisions of the Employment
         Agreement, and except only to the extent that they may be varied
         hereby, all of the terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain
         unchanged and in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and
         confirmed.


<PAGE>


If the foregoing correctly sets forth our understanding concerning this matter,
please sign below and return to us an executed copy of this letter, whereupon
this letter shall become a binding agreement between us.

Sincerely,

Teletrac, Inc.


By /s/ Steven D. Scheiwe
   ---------------------------------

Name:  Steven D. Scheiwe

Title: Chief Executive Officer





Accepted and agreed to as of the date written above.


/s/ Kenneth Weisner
-------------------------------------
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 2 1 ,

2013.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00745

- CR NO. 14

- 13

- 00746

- CR

JAVIER CRUZ , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1371902 & 1350321



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
A jury convicted appellant of aggravated assault and assault of a family member. On August 13, 2013, the trial court sentenced appellant in accordance with the jury’s assess ment of punishment at confinement for four year s in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial and notice of appeal on both convictions . On October 22, 2013, the trial court granted a new trial for both offenses on punishment only. See Tex. R. App. P.2

21.1(b); see also State v. Davis, 349 S.W.3d 535, 537

– 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (recognizing that the 2007 amendment to Rule 21 permits a t rial court to grant a new trial on punishment only).
On November 13, 2013, appellant filed a motion to dismiss his appeals for want of jurisdiction. A ppellant asserts that the August 13, 2013, judgments of
conviction are not final because the cases were r estored to their position after the defendant was found guilty when the trial court granted a new trial on punishment.
See Tex. R. App. P. 21. 9(c); see also State v. Stewart , 282 S.W.3d 729, 740

– 41 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2009, no pet.).

After the new punishmen t trial was granted, appellant entered a plea bargain agreement with the State, providing for appellant to be sentenced to community supervision for five years in exchange for waiving his right to appeal the findings of guilt and punishment for these convi ctions. On October 25, 2013, the trial court signed a new certification of the defendant’s right of appeal in each case, stating that the defendant has waived the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), (f).
The appeals from the August 13, 2013, judg ments have been rendered moot by the granting of a new trial on punishment. Moreover, in each case appellant has agreed to waive his right to appeal both the findings of guilt and the new sentences imposing community supervision. Accordingly, we lack juris diction over these appeals. We grant appellant’s motion to dismiss and order these appeals dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jamison.

Do Not Publish

– Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
N.D.D.S., IN RE

No. COA07-1212

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 19, 2008.

Certification Date March 10, 2008.

Appeal from Haywood (07JT45).

Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17698]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-3212-EM]


Louisiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of Louisiana (FEMA-3212-EM), dated August 27, 2005, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 29, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following areas 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared an emergency by the President in his declaration 
of August 27, 2005:

    The parishes of Acadia, Calcasieu, Cameron, Iberia, Iberville, 
Jefferson Davis, St. Martin, St. Mary, Vermilion, and West Baton 
Rouge for Public Assistance Category B (emergency protective 
measures), including direct Federal assistance.
    The parishes of Ascension, Assumption, Jefferson, Lafourche, 
Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John, 
St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Terrebonne, and Washington for Public 
Assistance Categories A and B (debris removal and emergency 
protective measures), including direct Federal assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs, 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Michael D. Brown,
Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of 
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 05-17698 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P