alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Amy Rebecca McARTHUR.

No. 363PA08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 6, 2009.

Thomas J. Ziko, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of January 2009 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Denied. By order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of January 2009."
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-86842-01 and 333-68283-01) and Forms S-8 (Nos.333-42015, 333-78779, 333-90042 and 333-100214-01) of AMB Property, L.P. of ourreports dated February 13, 2004, except for Note 2, as to which the date isNovember 8, 2004, and November 8, 2004 relating to the financial statements andfinancial statement schedules, respectively, which appear in this Amendment No.2 to Form 10-K.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Francisco, California
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JANUARY 31, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                       365,000
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                             11,730,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                               18,155,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          30,599,000
<PP&E>                                    54,967,000
<DEPRECIATION>                          (28,964,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            60,129,000<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     12,632,000
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      78,000
<OTHER-SE>                                38,740,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              60,129,000
<SALES>                                  122,763,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         122,763,000
<CGS>                                     38,584,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             76,368,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (13,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         2,499,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            5,325,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        5,325,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                               5,325,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .89
<FN>                                                
<F1>Provision for doubtful accounts and inventory provision included in total costs.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023338EN.01002701.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/27

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 24 July 2023 — Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals v Commission

(Case T-257/23 R)

(Interim relief - Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation - Application for interim measures - Application for injunction - Lack of urgency)

(2023/C 338/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: K. Roox, T. De Meese, J. Stuyck and C. Dumont, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Mathieu, L. Haasbeek and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, first, suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 3067 final of 2 May 2023 amending Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 601 final of 30 January 2014 granting marketing authorisation (‘MA’) for the medicinal product for human use Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Union procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1), as amended, and any subsequent decision or act extending or replacing the contested decision in so far as they concern it, and, second, an injunction requiring the European Commission to refrain from taking any other measures which would amount to a withdrawal of the MA enjoyed by it or a prohibition on placing generic Dimethyl fumarate products on the market.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to rule on the application to intervene submitted by Biogen Netherlands BV or on the application for confidential treatment submitted by Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals, SL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to rule on the application to intervene submitted by Biogen Netherlands BV or on the application for confidential treatment submitted by Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals, SL.

| 3. | The costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief are reserved.

| 4. | Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene submitted by Biogen Netherlands. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene submitted by Biogen Netherlands.

---
# C_2023205EN.01003602.xml

| 12.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/36

---

Action brought on 14 April 2023 — Mindspa v EUIPO — Mind Solutions (MINDSPA)

(Case T-196/23)

(2023/C 205/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Mindspa OÜ (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: A. Pavelts, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mind Solutions Ltd (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MINDSPA — Application for registration No 18 306 780

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2023 in Case R 374/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision partially, namely to the extent the Board of Appeal of EUIPO upheld the opposition and rejected the European Union trade mark application MINDSPA (No. 18 306 780); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision partially, namely to the extent the Board of Appeal of EUIPO upheld the opposition and rejected the European Union trade mark application MINDSPA (No. 18 306 780);

| — | to order protection to be granted to the trade mark at issue in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

to order protection to be granted to the trade mark at issue in its entirety;

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

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L. P.**

 

**Certification of Gregory F. Hughes, Treasurer ofWyoming Acquisition GP LLC, the sole general partner of the Registrant,pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode**

 

I,Gregory F.Hughes, Treasurer of Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC, the sole generalpartner of Reckson Operating Partnership, L. P. (the “Company”), certifypursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that:

 

1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  August 12, 2010 |   |                                        |
|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|                         | By     | /s/  Gregory F. Hughes                      |
|                         |   | Gregory  F. Hughes                          |
|                         |   | Treasurer                                   |
|                         |   | of  Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC,             |
|                         |   | the  sole general partner of the Registrant |

 

----
----

(2004/C 33 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2102/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject:   CAP reform — Mediterranean produce

Recently, on 3 June, at the close of the European Parliament's debate on the reform of the CAP, Mr Fischler (Commissioner) gave an undertaking that Mediterranean produce would soon be entitled to the same support as that for which other types of agricultural produce are eligible. This is a most interesting and important statement.

The Commission:

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2003)

At the meeting on 26 June 2003 of the Council of Agricultural Ministers in Luxembourg, the Commission engaged itself to submit in autumn 2003 a communication on the reform of the common market organisations for three major Mediterranean products, namely olive oil, tobacco and cotton, and to follow that communication with legal proposals.

As in its July 2002 communication, the Commission intends to provide a long-term policy perspective for these sectors in line with their present budgetary envelope and the new framework for agricultural expenditure agreed at the Brussels European Council in October 2002, based on the objectives and the approach of the reform agreed by the Council of Ministers at that same meeting in Luxembourg.

The Communication to the Council and the Parliament will contain a detailed presentation of the reform proposal and its modalities of application for olive oil, cotton and tobacco. For sugar, there will be a description of the various options and their impact. At the same time, the Commission will also consider the adoption of a proposal for the reform of CMO for hops.

The relevant legal propositions for olive oil, cotton and tobacco will be presented to the Council and the Parliament before the end of November 2003.

----
BYRD, et al. v. FRANKLIN COUNTY.

No. 462A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 1, 2015.

Aubrey S. Tomlinson, Jr., Louisburg, for Franklin County (NC).

George B. Currin, Raleigh, for Byrd, Aaron, et al.

Camden R. Webb, Raleigh, for Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 24th of June 2015 by Respondent:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of July 2015."

Respondent shall have up to and including the 3rd day of August 2015 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# C_2023173EN.01003502.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/35

---

Action brought on 23 March 2023 — Kirov v EUIPO — Pasticceria Cristiani (CRISTIANI)

(Case T-149/23)

(2023/C 173/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Georgi Kirov (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Matzner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pasticceria Cristiani Sas di Sergio Cristiani & C. (Livorno, Italy)

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 CRISTIANI — European Union trade mark No 13 498 381

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2023 in Case R 835/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 58 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 129/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 129/2014 of 10 February 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 129/2014                     

# of 10 February 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, 10 February 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.
----

(2004/C 33 E/260)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2326/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Discrimination between workers and employees as regards compensation for dismissal

Greek labour legislation does not consider that intellectual and manual workers merit the same degree of protection in the event of redundancy, which is why, when workers are dismissed, they receive proportionally far less compensation than employees. Trade union organisations have called for compensation for these two categories to be standardised, not only for obvious reasons of equal treatment, but also because the very small amount of compensation given to workers constitutes an incentive for dismissing them.

Can the Commission provide information on arrangements in the other Member States? What measures does it intend to take to promote the standardisation of compensation at European level?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

In 1997 the Commission published a report on the legal situation concerning ‘Termination of employment relationships’ in the Member States. The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's secretariat a copy of this report.

In the European Social Policy Agenda approved by the Nice European Council's meeting in December 2000, the Commission is requested to organise an exchange of views on individual dismissal by the year 2004.

In June 2003 the Commission launched a series of studies in order to ascertain the current position in the Member States. Once these have been finalised it is planned to publish an updated report in 2004. The Commission would then consider what future measures need to be taken.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Aaron D. STALLS.

No. 221P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Aaron D. Stalls, for Stalls, Aaron D.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 1st of July 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, New Hanover County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of 1 Minneso ta, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J
. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4128

___________ Gene Lalonde, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner * of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 2, 1998 Filed: July 6, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gene Lalonde appeals the dismissal of his action se eking constructive reopening of a previously denied claim for child disability benefits. Having ca refully reviewed the re cordand the parties & briefs, we affirm the judgment of the district court for th e 1 reasons set forth in the magistrate judge & s well-reasoned report. See8th Cir. R. 47B. In addition, Lalonde & s assertion that his prior attorneys were negligent is not grounds-2-

for reversal in this civil action. See Glick v. Henderson , 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988). A true copy.

Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT..
Exhibit 13.1



Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act Of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Industrias Bachoco, S.A.B.
de C.V., a sociedad anonima bursatil de capital variableunder the laws of Mexico (the “Company”), does
hereby certify that, to the best of such officer’s knowledge:



| | 1. | The accompanying Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Report”)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



April 30, 2014



| | By: | /s/Rodolfo Ramos Arvizu
| | --- | -----------------------
| |     | Rodolfo Ramos Arvizu   
| |     | Chief Executive Officer



April 30, 2014



| | By: | /s/Daniel Salazar Ferrer
| | --- | ------------------------
| |     | Daniel Salazar Ferrer   
| |     | Chief Financial Officer 



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Industrias Bachoco, S.A.B. de C.V. and will be retained by Industrias Bachoco,
S.A.B. de C.V. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE v. WILLIAMS.

No. COA08-554.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from Pender (07CRS50015, 07CRS50016).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed and remanded for correction of clerical errors.
STATE v. Terrance Javarr ROSS.

No. 297P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 21, 2015.

Peter Wood, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Ross, Terrance Javarr.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Rick Shaffer, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of August 2015 by State for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of August 2015."
`[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 550 Referred in House (RFH)]







110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 550


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2008

      Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
 To preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of the District 
                              of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. COMPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT.

    Section 903 of title 11 of the District of Columbia Code is amended 
by striking ``fifty-eight'' and inserting ``61''.

            Passed the Senate February 4, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.`