alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009032EN.01002601.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/26

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — JTEKT v OHIM (IFS)

(Case T-462/05) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community word mark IFS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Not descriptive - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 32/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JTEKT Corp., formerly Toyoda Koki Kabushiki Kaisha (Aichi-ken, Japan) (represented by: initially by J. Wachinger and M. Zöbisch, and subsequently by M. De Zorti, M. Koch and T. Grimm, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1157/2004-1) concerning an application to register the word mark IFS as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1157/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1157/2004-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by JTEKT Corp. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by JTEKT Corp.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

1

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

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PL
BRANDS, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
JULY 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                    JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                          1,883,518
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   4,378
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,887,896
<PP&E>                          2,999,500
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  4,887,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           108,843
<BONDS>                         0
<COMMON>                        16,899
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<OTHER-SE>                      7,564,973
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    4,778,553
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                5,440
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                589,269
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (583,829)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (583,829)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (583,829)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.05)



</TABLE>
Press Release



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Press Release 
 November 22, 2010 

Mountain 1st Bank & Trust Company to Close Two Branches 

to Improve Operating Efficiency 
 HENDERSONVILLE, NC: 1st Financial Services Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: FFIS), the parent company of Mountain 1st Bank and Trust announced today it will close its Arden and Lake Lure branches, effective February 28, 2011.
Letters to the customers of each of those offices will be mailed out early this week. In both cases, the only change customers will experience is a new location. All their accounts will remain open and they will not have to take any action.

 Likewise, the company will also eliminate several non-branch positions within the bank. The decision to close the two
branches and reduce the workforce was difficult. However, in light of where we are in the current economic cycle, we believe we can continue to provide the highest level of service our customers have come to expect from Mountain 1st Bank, while at the same time improve our operating efficiency by
reducing costs. To assist affected associates, we have instituted a bank-wide hiring freeze and these associates will be able to apply for any internal position for which they meet the position qualifications. 

As we continue to navigate in a very difficult economy, the board of directors and management team continues to look at all options
to improve the performance of Mountain 1st Bank. Michael
Mayer, CEO of Mountain 1st stated, “While we cannot
control the local economy, especially the performance of our real estate markets, we can work very hard to make sure we always provide the best service to our customers in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible”. 

Please refer any comments or questions to Holly Schreiber, CFO, at 828-697-3106.
* 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. 07-51455

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VINCENT LESEAN MCRAE

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CR-30-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Vincent Lesean

McRae has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). McRae has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief 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
STATE v. RICHARDSON.

No. COA08-788.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 17, 2009.

Certification Date April 6, 2009.

Appeal from Orange (06CRS53465, 06CRS53466, 06CRS53467, 06CRS53468, 06CRS53469).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
The NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR, Plaintiff, v. William S. BRITT, Attorney, Defendant.

No. COA14-1116.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 1, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINON**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

KEVIN PATTERSON,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 157 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 5192)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Deafness and Other Communications Disorders Special Emphasis Panel, Middle Ear Clinical Center Review.                    

*Date:*                         February 28, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6120 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone conference call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Da-yu  Wu, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDCD, NIH, 6120 Executive Blvd., Suite 400C, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-8683,                         *wudy@nidcd.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 25, 2005.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-1820  Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
STATE of North Carolina. v. Tavares Laquin JETER.

No. 423P14.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Phyllis A. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Tavares Laquin Jeter, for Jeter, Tavares Laquin.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 20th of November 2014 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of November 2014 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 20th of August 2015."
ALLEN v. TRAVELERS INS. CO.

No. 235P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Jimmy L. Allen, Charlotte, for Allen, Jimmy L., et al.

James S. Derrick, Charlotte, for Travelers Insurance Company.

Angela M. Allen, Raleigh.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of July 2015 by Plaintiffs for Petition for Discretionary Review:

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

(2004/C 88 E/0405)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2307/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject:   Timor – 1999 massacres; trial of those responsible; Indonesia – human rights

In his answer to the earlier written question (E-0921/03 (1)) on the same subject Commissioner Patten said that the Union was constantly following the activities of the ad hoc court set up to judge crimes committed in East Timor and would be able to return to the issue when the latest judgment, expected at the beginning of May, was known and before appeal proceedings were launched.

Can the Commission therefore say:

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

The Commission, through its Delegation in Jakarta and together with the Member States Representations in Indonesia, has been monitoring closely the course of the Ad Hoc tribunal on East Timor.

Following the most recent verdict, issued on 5 August 2003, the Union issued a ‘Declaration’ in which it expressed its disappointment and stated that ‘the deficiencies in the process have jeopardised the credibility of the verdicts’.

The Commission intends to encourage the competent authorities to improve the proceedings for the appeal process, according to international standards of justice to ensure that the verdicts are proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes committed.

Considering the deficiencies of the judicial system in Indonesia, the Commission has a standing commitment of EUR 13 millions to the ‘Partnership for Good Governance’ programme, implemented by the United Nations Development Programme UNDP. The Commission is also designing a EUR 11 million ‘Judiciary Support Programme’, focused on the training of judges and prosecutors. Moreover, the Commission is considering a request by the National Commission on Human Rights KOMNAS HAM for specialised technical assistance in the field of investigation techniques, in conflict areas in Indonesia.

----

(1)  See page 337.

----
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**SECTION302 CERTIFICATION**

** **

I, Douglas A. Catalano, Chairman, ChiefExecutive Officer and President of enherent Corp., certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of enherent Corp.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

a)     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)    evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)     allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)    anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| /s/ Douglas A. Catalano                          |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                             |
| Douglas A. Catalano                              |
| Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and  President |
| April 14, 2004                                   |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 487 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 487

   To amend the National Organ Transplant Act to clarify that kidney 
 paired donations shall not be considered to involve the transfer of a 
                human organ for valuable consideration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 2007

 Mr. Levin (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Graham, Mr. Durbin, 
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Cardin) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the National Organ Transplant Act to clarify that kidney 
 paired donations shall not be considered to involve the transfer of a 
                human organ for valuable consideration.

    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 ``Living Kidney Organ Donation 
Clarification Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL ORGAN TRANSPLANT ACT.

    Section 301(a) of the National Organ Transplant Act (42 U.S.C. 
274e(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes 
of this section, kidney paired donations shall not be considered to 
involve the transfer of a human organ for valuable consideration.''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. Charles Vincent HAYES.

No. 474P11-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 10, 2015.

Mr. Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Charles Vincent Hayes, Lumberton, for Hayes, Charles Vincent.

Pat Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of December 2014 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of June 2015."
# C_2009193EN.01003705.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/37

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2009 — De Geest v Council

(Case F-80/05) (1)

1

2009/C 193/66

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005, p. 25.

1

---
# CE2004084EN.01001201.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/12

---

(2004/C 84 E/0011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1940/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Stamp duty exemption scheme

Subject:

In approving the UK stamp duty exemption scheme for disadvantaged areas, as announced in DN; PP/03/8.9 dated 21 January 2003, can the Commission indicate why it regards wards containing more than one fifth of the population of the UK as ‘small areas of severe deprivation’ and what the reporting obligations and the timescale are for these reports from the UK authorities on the input of the scheme on the physical regeneration of the eligible areas?

---
-**----·~** - --- -----·--------------**~** --- ---- --- ---------- --- 

# I
()nlcr issued September 12, 2012

In The 

## Qrourt of Appeals 1Jiiftl1 IDistrict of Wcxas at IDallas No. 05-12-01226-CV IN RE DAVID A. SCHUi\·1, Relator Original Proceeding from the 330th .Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-05-9233-Y 

### ORDER Before Justices Morris, Richter, and Lang-Miers Based on the Court's opinion ofthis date, we DENY relator's petition for writ ofmandamus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs ofthis original proceeding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,375                     497
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,725                  60,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,943                  75,560
<PP&E>                                          59,956                  46,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 348,295                 270,891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,089                  14,432
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           481                     478
<OTHER-SE>                                     153,339                 149,574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   348,295                 270,891
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               164,219                 123,918
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               108,536                  84,694
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,426                   (399)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,257                  39,623
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,482                  15,112
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,775                  24,511
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                        (678)                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,097                  24,511
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .69                     .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .68                     .50


</TABLE>