alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023304EN.01002401.xml

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/24

---

Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Väderstad v EUIPO (Position of a combination of presentational features)

(Case T-361/23)

(2023/C 304/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Väderstad Holding AB (Väderstad, Sweden) (represented by: A. Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union mark representing the position of a combination of presentational features — Application for registration No 18 131 019

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2023 in Case R 58/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | as a subsidiary claim, annul the contested decision in relation to the goods in class 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a subsidiary claim, annul the contested decision in relation to the goods in class 7;

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

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article (7)(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article (7)(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
----

(2004/C 33 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0942/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject:   Political debate on the future funding of the Union

Before 1 January 2006, the Commission is to undertake a general review of the own-resources system, although it has already given Parliament an undertaking that this review will be completed by the end of 2004; it will include the issue of creating fresh own-resources.

The Commission is right in thinking that there should be a political debate on the major options for the Union's future funding; what criteria should be used for proceeding to open this debate?

What does the Commission believe is the most appropriate procedure, and who should be responsible for taking the initiative?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Following article 9 of the Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 (1), the Commission shall undertake, before 1 January 2006, a general review of the own resources system. On request of the Parliament, the Commission committed itself to present its review by the end of 2004. As far as possible, the Commission is striving to produce its review even earlier, bearing in mind that the new Own Resources Decision actually came into force only on 1 January 2002.

The Commission recently agreed on a timetable and internal organisation arrangements in view of completing the necessary preparatory work for the Union financial framework beyond 2006. In this regard, the Commission intends to present a Communication to the European Council in December 2003 containing broad orientations for the financial framework, including the own resources system. In a second stage, the Commission intends to be ready by mid-2004 in view of presenting, as appropriate, related legislative proposals.

The Convention is also addressing the issue of the Union's finances. The Commission actively contributes to the discussion in the Convention. In its Communication of 4 December 2002 (2), the Commission encouraged the Convention to examine the funding of the Union's action and more recently it tabled proposals as regards the relevant articles on Union finances to the Convention.

----

(1)OJ L 253, 7.10.2000.

(2)  COM(2002) 728 final: For the European Union — Peace, Freedom, Solidarity.

----
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 399 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to include podiatrists as 

physicians for purposes of covering physicians services under the Medicaid program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25, 2007 

Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Ms. MIKULSKI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to include 

podiatrists as physicians for purposes of covering physicians services under the Medicaid program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF PODIATRISTS AS PHYSICIANS 

4 UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905(a)(5)(A) of the So6 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(5)(A)) is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘section 1861(r)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘para8 graphs (1) and (3) of section 1861(r)’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

2 

•S 399 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply to services furnished on or after 

3 January 1, 2007. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
# CE2004078EN.01008801.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/88

---

(2004/C 78 E/0086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2191/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Funding for the IRENE organisation

Subject:

In answer to other recent questions to the Commission (E-0344/03 (1) and P-1436/03 (2)), Mrs Diamantopoulou stated that the whole amount of appropriations under the new budget Item A-3046 had been allocated to an organisation called IRENE and described the terms and conditions under which this action had been taken. I need to gain a clearer understanding of the matter.

1

2

Can the Commission therefore say what Community subsidies or other type of financial support it granted to IRENE, directly or indirectly, in the years 2000, 2001, 2002, and — as far as is known — 2003? Specifically, what amounts were granted under what budget headings and/or Community programmes?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

(14 August 2003)

According to the Commission's databases on contracts, the following amounts have been committed to the Irene organisation:

| — | in 2001, an amount of EUR 36 402 under the STOP programme (budget heading B5-820); |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2001, an amount of EUR 36 402 under the STOP programme (budget heading B5-820);

| — | in 2002, an amount of EUR 99 494,36 under budget heading B3-4105 (Preparatory measures combating and preventing exclusion) and an amount of EUR 300 000 under budget heading A-3046 (Women's organisations). |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2002, an amount of EUR 99 494,36 under budget heading B3-4105 (Preparatory measures combating and preventing exclusion) and an amount of EUR 300 000 under budget heading A-3046 (Women's organisations).

---

(1)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 211.

1

(2)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 198.

2

---
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J OSE VALAD EZ ; BABI TA VA LADEZ, P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l ees, v. R UB E N A GU AL L O; P AU L GR E GO R I O, D efen d an t s - A p p el l an t s. N o. 10- 15058 D . C . N o . 5 : 0 8 -cv -0 3 1 0 0 -JW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a m e s W a r e , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry15, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S , an d G O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R ub en A gu al l o and P aul G re go ri o app ea l the di stri ctcourt ’ s j ud gm ent , af t er j ury tr i a l , i n f

a vorof pl a i nt i f f s J os e a nd B abi t aV a l a de z i n the i ra c t i on a l l e gi ng cl ai m s und erR IC O , and for ext ort i on and i nt ent i on al i nfl i ct i on of em ot i on al d is tr e s s . 

# FI LED MA Y12 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

T h e e v id e n c e e s tab lis h e d th a t ap p e lle e s w e r e e n g a g e d in in te r s ta te co m m erce th ro u g h th ei r ren t al car u p h o l st ery rep ai r an d i n t eri o r cl ean i n g b u si n ess; thei r c on du ctneed no thave m ore than a de m i n i m is e f f e c t o n in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . Se e U ni te d State s v . A tc he s on , 94 F . 3d 1237, 1241 ( 9th C i r . 1996) . T he f r aud ve r di c tw a s noti nc ons i s t e ntw i th the ve r di c t s on the othe rc ount s be c aus e the f r aud c l a i m h a d d i f

f e r e n te l e me n t s . Th e j u ry ’ s a w a r d o f n o mi n a l d a ma g e s o n th e RI CO c l a i m s upport e d the a w a r d of the a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s , w hi c h a r e m a nda t oryw he n a v io la tio n o f

R I C O is e s tab lis h e d . See 18 U . S . C . § 1 96 4(c) . A FFI R M ED .
# CE2004084EN.01049301.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/493 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/493

---

(2004/C 84 E/0570)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2496/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject:   World current account discrepancy

Subject:

Will the Commission estimate for last year, and project for this year, the size of the world current account discrepancy both in euros and as a proportion of GDP? Will it give its explanation of the discrepancy and say whether it believes that unrecorded foreign exchange receipts for some or all Member States are a reason for it? If so, what is the likely scale of the under-recording and is there any reason to believe that it might vary between Member States? What effect would such under-recording have on the observed current account balances for the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

(3 September 2003)

The Commission does not produce estimates of the size of the world current account discrepancy. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is the only international organisation for which enough information is available to produce such estimates.

The latest world current account discrepancy figures, as calculated by the IMF, refer to the year 2001, and they totalled EUR – 131,1 billion. Using the World Bank estimate of gross domestic product (GDP) for the year 2001 (EUR 34 748 billion) the world current account discrepancy corresponds to 0,38 % of world GDP. The average discrepancy for the period 1995-2001 was EUR -49,4 billion, displaying a negative sign during all the period 1995-2001 with the only exception of 1997.

Regarding Member States contribution to the global asymmetry, the only source available to the Commission (Eurostat) is the size of the asymmetries observed in the Balance of Payments of the Union (1). In 2001 intra-Union current account asymmetries reached EUR 34,3 billion (0,39 % of Union GDP). The imbalance is positive, meaning than reported credits exceed reported debits in the case of the Union Balance of Payments. Preliminary results for 2002 point to a discrepancy of EUR 31,4 billion. This positive imbalance represents a structural feature of the intra-Union current account balance over the period 1995-2001. Over this period the intra-Union current account balance showed an average positive discrepancy of EUR 42,5 billion.

1

For further details, two annexes are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

(1)  More detailed information is available in Eurostat, 2002. Asymmetries of Current account in the intra-UE balance of payments, Working Papers ans studies (available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-catalogue/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&collection=12-Working%20papers%20and%20studies&product=KS-AO-02-004-_-N-EN).

1

---
STATE v. Jonathan Douglas RICHARDSON.

No. 272A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 6, 2015.

Paul M. Green, Durham, for Richardson, Jonathan Douglas.

David Weiss, Durham, for Richardson, Jonathan Douglas.

Gregory Butler, Assistant District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Paul Jackson, Assistant District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*73Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of October 2015 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Trial Transcript:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of October 2015."
Alfred T. PICKETT, Marvin E. Baugh, Park R. Davidson, and David G. Baugh v. Ralph L. ROBERSON.

No. 521P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Jennifer Harrod, Randall A. Underwood, Alan E. Ferguson, Greensboro, for Roberson.

James G. Exum, Jr., Bruce P. Ashley, Patti Ramseur, Greensboro, for Pickett, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of October 2007 by Defendant 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. William F. CASE.

No. 511P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th day of November 2008 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

*664"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of February 2009."
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-09-00161-CR

______________________________

DEVIN ERIC MIMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 38009-B

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Devin Eric Mims claims error in sentencing by the trial court on a charge of theft, a class C 

misdemeanor, enhanced by two prior theft convictions. Sentence was imposed in accordance 

with Section 31.03(e)(4)(D) of the Texas Penal Code for a state-jail felony term of two years’ 

confinement. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (Vernon Supp. 2009). 

Mims complains that (1) the State impermissibly enhanced punishment with a prior theft 

conviction, when the same prior conviction was used to enhance punishment on a different theft 

charge, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution, the Texas 

Constitution, and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and (2) the trial court erred in failing to 

consider the full range of punishment in a context that violates his due process rights and 

implicates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on Mims’ appeal in cause 

number 06-09-00160-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that error has not 

been shown in this case.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III 

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: February 16, 2010

Date Decided: March 9, 2010
3

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            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 Annual Report of OraLabs Holding Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Gary H.
Schlatter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC
SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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.





/S/ GARY H. SCHLATTER
------------------------------------------
GARY H. SCHLATTER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



DATED: DECEMBER 21, 2005
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  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 GameTech International, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended October 31,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Hewitt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge and
belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





Date:
January 29, 2003

| | /s/JOHN P. HEWITTJohn P. Hewitt Chief Financial
Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
----

(2004/C 33 E/253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2305/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject:   ‘For Diversity, Against Discrimination’ campaign

On 16 June 2003, Mrs Diamantopoulou, Member of the Commission, launched her ‘For Diversity, Against Discrimination’ campaign. One of the campaign's instruments was the creation of a website which is accessible in just three languages (English, French and German). The home page claims that ‘In the future this website will be available in all EU languages.’ However, on 2 July 2003, a good two weeks after the launch of the said website, the texts were still not available in the other official languages of the European Union.

Why was the said campaign launched before the texts had been translated?

Why does the translation thereof take so long?

Does not the provision of a website in just three EU languages, when the cost thereof also being borne by taxpayers in other linguistic regions, itself constitute a form of discrimination?

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Orlando COOK.

No. 254P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Michael O. Cook, Pro Se.

Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th day of June 2008 by Defendant 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."
# CE2004078EN.01000301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/3

---

(2004/C 78 E/0003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3463/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject:   Economic integration

Subject:

Will the Commission state the value of profits and dividends paid to non-residents in each Member State for each year of the last five years, and will it further express that figure as a percentage of total business profits in each Member State, excluding profits remitted outside the Member State?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

(27 January 2003)

The Commission has calculated the value of profits and dividends paid to non-residents for the years/Member States that enough information was available to perform such calculations.

The Commission has also calculated, when feasible, the percentage they represent in total business profits, excluding profits remitted outside the Member States.

All data available are given in the table sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat.

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40018

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARVIN JOEL ESCOBAR-CARCAMO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-629-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Marvin Joel EscobarCarcamo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Escobar-Carcamo has filed a

response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and EscobarCarcamo’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
# C_2023235EN.01004501.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/45

---

Action brought on 20 April 2023 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Cannabinoids Spain (Sanoid)

(Case T-206/23)

(2023/C 235/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cannabinoids Spain SLU (Córdoba, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark Sanoid — Application for registration No 18 091 726

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2023 in Joined Cases R 1024/2022-5 and R 1036/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject EU trade mark application No 18 091 726 Sanoid for Classes 3, 5, 31, 32, 35, 41, 42 and 44; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject EU trade mark application No 18 091 726 Sanoid for Classes 3, 5, 31, 32, 35, 41, 42 and 44;

| — | order EUIPO and, if appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, if appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

---
STATE v. Christopher Lee KING.

No. 229P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Chapel Hill, for King, Christopher Lee.

June S. Ferrell, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Gary W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of July 2015 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

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