alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBERS 13-08-00369-CV 

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

BLANCA E. PUENTE, ET AL., Appellants,

v.

LEVI STRAUSS & COMPANY, ET AL., Appellees. 

_____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 389th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, Blanca E. Puente, et al., attempted to perfect an appeal from an order

entered by the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-1691-03-

H. The Order granting Levi Strauss & Co.’s Motion to Dismiss Remaining LS&CO.
2

plaintiffs was signed on March 13, 2008. Appellants filed a motion for Court to Reconsider

Order of Dismissal or, in the Alternative, Motion to Reinstate or Motion for New Trial on

April 16, 2008. Appellants’ motion for new trial was not filed within thirty days after

February 19, 2008. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a). 

 Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellants’ notice of appeal

was due on April 12, 2008, but was not filed until May 9, 2008. A motion for extension of

time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal

beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by

Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d

615, 617-18, 619 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, appellant

must provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing: it is not enough to simply file a

notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins, 140 S.W.3d 462, 462 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2004,

no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. App.–Waco 2002, no pet.).

On June 10, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants of this defect so that

steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants were advised

that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s

letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from

appellants providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.

 The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants’

failure to timely perfect their appeal, and appellants’ failure to respond to this Court’s

notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c).
3

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered 

and filed this the 21st day of August, 2008.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18200]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board; Public 
Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Small Business 
Development Centers, National Advisory Board will be hosting a public 
meeting via conference call to discuss such matters that may be 
presented by members, the staff of the U.S. Small Business 
Administration, or interested others. The conference will be held on 
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 1 p.m. eastern standard time.
    Anyone wishing to participate or make an oral presentation to the 
Board must contact Erika Fischer, Senior Program Analyst, U.S. Small 
Business Administration, Office of Small Business Development Centers, 
409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, telephone (202) 205-7045 or 
fax (202) 481-0681.

Matthew K. Becker,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-18200 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
STATE v. Mario Lynn PHILLIPS.

No. 48A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 9, 2008.

Maureen Krueger, Garland N. Yates, District Attorneys, for State of NC.

*905Anne Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Phillips.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of December 2008 by Defendant for Extension of Time for Service of Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 13th day of February 2009 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 9th day of December 2008."
McLAUGHLIN, et al. v. BAILEY, et al.

No. 163A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 3, 2015.

Harvey L. Kennedy, Winston-Salem, for McLaughlin, Ivan, et al.

Harold L. Kennedy, III, Winston-Salem, for McLaughlin, Ivan, et al.

Sean F. Perrin, Charlotte, for Bailey, Daniel, et al.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 2nd of September 2015 by Plaintiffs:

> *512"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of September 2015."

ERVIN, J., recused.
DISCOVER BANK v. SIMS.

No. COA08-751.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (07CVD13646).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
----

(2004/C 33 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1798/03

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject:   Refunds for sugar-processing operations

In accordance with the Brussels Agreement (2002/C 152/05) (1), the firm Agrar Invest Tatschl imports sugar from Serbia and Croatia. Tatschľs customers use the sugar imported from Serbia or Croatia in the manufacture of juices, chocolate, etc. and then export the finished products to third countries.

The current intervention price for sugar is approximately euro 699 per tonne. The world market price, on the other hand, is only about euro 250. The sugar-processing operations should therefore receive a refund of approximately euro 450 per tonne for sugar imported for processing from Serbia and Croatia when the finished products (juices, chocolate) are subsequently exported to third countries (export of Non-Annex I products from the Union's customs-free territory with application for an export refund).

The refund in question works without any problem in Germany and Italy. I do not understand why Austrian sugar-processing operations have so far been placed at a disadvantage by the refusal to grant them refunds.

The Austrian Finance Ministry took action on this matter last year (28 March 2002) by sending a request to the Commission for clarification on whether Austrian firms were eligible for refunds in these circumstances. So far the Commission has not replied.

I would therefore like answers to the following questions:

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

It is up to the competent national authorities to decide whether or not export refunds can be granted pursuant to the Community regulations. Operators should therefore contact them in the event of any problem.

In the case raised by the honourable member, the Commission takes the view that sugar imported from Croatia and Serbia used to manufacture the processed products referred to in Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (2) should not receive refunds pursuant to Article 27(3) and (12) of that Regulation. The Commission will take the appropriate initiatives to ensure uniform interpretation of these provisions as soon as possible.

----

(1)OJ C 152, 26.6.2002, p. 14.

(2)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         609,526
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  128,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,268,531
<PP&E>                                      12,029,975
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,177,154
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,166,916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,479,718
<BONDS>                                      2,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,285,110
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,196,118)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,166,916
<SALES>                                      9,307,351
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,307,351
<CGS>                                        4,409,412
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,297,289
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             302,865
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (277,645)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (279,245)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (279,245)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17895]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Siskiyou County Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Siskiyou County Resource Advisory Committee will meet in 
Yreka, California, September 19, 2005. The meeting will include routine 
business and the review, discussion, and possible recommendation of 
submitted large projects.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 19, 2005, from 4 p.m. until 7 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Yreka High School Library, 
Preece Way, Yreka, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Hall, RAC Coordinator, Klamath 
National Forest, (530) 841-4468 or electronically at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fe9a91909f929a969f9292be988dd0989b9ad08b8d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dbbfb4b5bab7bfb3bab7b79bbda8f5bdbebff5aea8">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Public 
comment opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the 
opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

    Dated: September 2, 2005.
Margaret J. Boland,
Designated Federal official.
[FR Doc. 05-17895 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

N.I.

Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland

# 2014 No. 276

Environmental Protection

# The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

6th November 2014

Coming into operation

28th November 2014

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

F1Regulations revoked (2.2.2017) by The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017 (S.R. 2017/3), regs. 1, **3**
Exhibit 32.1  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 annual report of Perpetual Technologies, Inc.(the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned principal executive and financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) the Report fully 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 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  March 12, 2009   /s/ Neil Christiansen Neil Christiansen, President (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6704

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT EDWARD SILLS, a/k/a Bobby,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (2:03-cr-00148-JBF-5)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Edward Sills, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Edward Sills appeals the district court's orders

denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000), seeking a

reduction to his sentence based on an amendment to the Sentencing

Guidelines, and denying his amended motion. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we find the

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions.

See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004)

(motion under § 3582(c) “is subject to the discretion of the

district court”); United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 727 (4th

Cir. 2000). 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
# CE2004084EN.01048201.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/482 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/482

---

(2004/C 84 E/0559)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2158/03

by Danielle Darras (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Sub-contracting, EU funding and Isbergue

Subject:

The author of this question has duly noted the reply of 6 June 2003 which she has received from Mrs Diamantopoulou (on behalf of the Commission) in respect of her question P-l696/03 (1), but she would like to request further information: namely, can the Commission object to the restructuring envisaged on the Isbergue site if EU funding is received either by Arcelor or by the companies with which Arcelor has sub-contracting arrangements?

1

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

(25 July 2003)

The answer to this question must set out the same principles already explained in the answer given on 6 June 2003 to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-1696/03.

The Commission cannot object to the restructuring of an industrial grouping based solely on whether this group has or has not received assistance from the Structural Funds.

However, for the current programming period 2000-2006, Article 30 of the Regulation (2) on the Structural Funds provides that if, within five years of the decision awarding assistance, an operation which has received assistance from the Structural Funds undergoes a substantial modification affecting the nature of the operation or its conditions of implementation, as a result of a cessation or change of location of an activity, the provisions on financial corrections set out in Article 39 of the Regulation apply. In this case, the Member State must inform the Commission and make the required financial corrections by cancelling all or part of the Community contribution.

2

For the previous programming periods, the regulations did not provide for any means to recover grants awarded under the Structural Funds, provided the operations were carried out and payments made on the basis of the legislation in force.

---

(1)  See page 474.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

2

---
Joseph Michael GRIFFITH v. Chaplain HOVIS, et al.

No. 257A15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Joseph Michael Griffith, for Griffith, Joseph Michael.

Kari R. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for Hovis, Chaplain, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiff on the 23rd of July 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Defendants, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."

JACKSON, J. recused.
STATE v. CLARK.

No. COA07-1267.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 3, 2008.

Certification Date June 23, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (04CRS88225).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
In re the FORECLOSURE OF BROWN.

No. 224PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Wilder Wadford, Weaverville, for Brown, Grover C., et al.

Adam W. Bull, Asheville, for Almond, Nelson T. (Executor), et al.

John R. Dillard, Morganton, for First Choice Title, LLC.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the conditional motion filed on the 10th of July 2015 by First Choice Title, LLC for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
STATE v. HOLLOWAY.

No. COA07-1505.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 15, 2008.

Certification Date August 4, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (06CRS87291, 06CRS87229).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# C_2023179EN.01007401.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/74

---

Action brought on 5 April 2023 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Samar’t Pharma (Bl blue pigment)

(Case T-180/23)

(2023/C 179/102)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and S. Vandezande, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Samar’t Pharma, SL (Vilamalla, Spain)

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 figurative mark Bl blue pigment — Application for registration No 18 338 656

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2023 in Case R 1102/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | 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.

---
Exhibit
32.1








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 annual report on
Form 10-K of Tier Technologies, Inc., (the “Company”), for the period ended
September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Ronald L. Rossetti, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that, to his knowledge:







1.
            This
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
  amended.






2.
            The
      information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.







Dated:  December
      9, 2008
            /s/
      Ronald L. RossettiRonald
      L. RossettiChief
      Executive Officer
STATE v. Marvin Wade MILLSAPS.

No. 374P13-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Barry H. Bloch, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Marvin W. Millsaps, Norlina, for Millsaps, Marvin Wade.

Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of July 2015 by Defendant for Appellate Procedure Substantial Offense:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.